When we started Bill Foster Watch last year, it was out of frustration with the Mayor, and the media's lack of coverage of his many stumbles. Earlier this year, the Tampa Bay Times shifted away from supporting Mayor Foster on most issues and they began to openly attack him. The Times has done such a good job of covering the Mayor recently and holding his feet to the fire on so many issues like the reimbursement for the RNC pre-party and the lack of leadership on the budget, that we at BillFosterWatch are just left in awe of how well the Times is doing our job for us. We counted no less than 12 articles exposing Bill Foster's stumbles in the last month alone, with the last being this editorial published on Saturday entitled "Poor leadership at budget crunch time". The Times places blame on both council and the Mayor, but other recent columns and articles make it clear that they blame Foster much more than council.
We hope that the Times keeps this up through the election next year, because if they do, we might be Foster-free in 2013!
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Friday, September 14, 2012
Mayor Foster's Parents "Hate Everything About" The Lens Pier
Yesterday afternoon, architect Michael Maltzan came to present an update to City Council about the progress being made on the new Lens pier project. Not much has changed in the last few months: still no new pictures, they are still using images of clear water in the "reef" area of the pier, they are still using generic images to describe features they are thinking about putting in the Lens pier. We counted over a dozen non-committal responses to questions asked by council members, including: "still under consideration", "to be determined", "we're studying that", "it is a topic of research of things to be looked at", "we are looking into that", and on and on.
Only a few new pieces of information came out at this 2-hour meeting. The first is that the bids came in to demolish the existing pier, they were between $2.9 - $6.8 million, within the budgeted $4.5 million amount, but WAY below the city-estimated $13 million figure that convinced city council to vote to destroy the inverted pyramid pier two years ago(we would think this big of a mistake by a city employee would result in some kind of disciplinary action, but disciplinary action doesn't appear to exist in Bill Foster's city administration).
The next new piece of information was about the expected subsidy for the new Lens pier. In response to Councilman Kennedy's decrying the lack of any kind of business plan, we found out that the subsidy will be "a third to a half" of the current operating subsidy. That puts it at a $500,000 to $750,000 per year net loss to the city to operate the giant toilet bowl of the Lens pier. This would still make the Lens pier the most expensive city subsidy aside from Tropicana Field. So the pier subsidy gets cut in half, and the number of jobs related to the pier will be cut by 80-90%(from 500 to 300 jobs now, to about 50 jobs with the Lens pier). This is a good time to mention one of our favorite Foster quotes: "Jobs is the biggest indicator of economic vitality and growth of a city. If you're not creating jobs, and growing, you're dying".
Another new piece of information was just how much the Lens pier itself has shrunk since its first presentation. The Lens pier plan entered into the design contest was about 1450 feet long. Then, to come in under budget, Maltzan had to shrink the "tiara" portion of the Lens and move the whole structure 100 feet closer to shore. Yesterday we found out that the Lens has shrunk even more. In response to a question about this from Councilman Nurse, Maltzan admitted that the Lens pier was now down to "1100 feet right now". If we keep going at this rate, the pier will be only 200 feet long by the time it is built.
The last new piece of information came from Mayor Bill Foster himself. The Mayor, who was dressed in a fashionable matching legal-pad-yellow shirt and tie, revealed that his parents "hate everything about" the Lens pier, and that the new Lens pier is about the future, not the older generation, saying "my parents will not be excited, I have written them off". Writing off an entire generation of people is pretty harsh Mr. Mayor.
Nothing else new was revealed, another meeting is scheduled "about 60 days from now" that is supposed to have more answers. Speaking of questions and answers, over a month ago, we submitted a list of 15 questions to Councilman Kornell to ask the Maltzan group, he never got back to us, but after this meeting, only 3 of those questions have been answered. We will be posting an updated list of "unanswered questions about the Lens pier" in the next few days.
Only a few new pieces of information came out at this 2-hour meeting. The first is that the bids came in to demolish the existing pier, they were between $2.9 - $6.8 million, within the budgeted $4.5 million amount, but WAY below the city-estimated $13 million figure that convinced city council to vote to destroy the inverted pyramid pier two years ago(we would think this big of a mistake by a city employee would result in some kind of disciplinary action, but disciplinary action doesn't appear to exist in Bill Foster's city administration).
The next new piece of information was about the expected subsidy for the new Lens pier. In response to Councilman Kennedy's decrying the lack of any kind of business plan, we found out that the subsidy will be "a third to a half" of the current operating subsidy. That puts it at a $500,000 to $750,000 per year net loss to the city to operate the giant toilet bowl of the Lens pier. This would still make the Lens pier the most expensive city subsidy aside from Tropicana Field. So the pier subsidy gets cut in half, and the number of jobs related to the pier will be cut by 80-90%(from 500 to 300 jobs now, to about 50 jobs with the Lens pier). This is a good time to mention one of our favorite Foster quotes: "Jobs is the biggest indicator of economic vitality and growth of a city. If you're not creating jobs, and growing, you're dying".
Another new piece of information was just how much the Lens pier itself has shrunk since its first presentation. The Lens pier plan entered into the design contest was about 1450 feet long. Then, to come in under budget, Maltzan had to shrink the "tiara" portion of the Lens and move the whole structure 100 feet closer to shore. Yesterday we found out that the Lens has shrunk even more. In response to a question about this from Councilman Nurse, Maltzan admitted that the Lens pier was now down to "1100 feet right now". If we keep going at this rate, the pier will be only 200 feet long by the time it is built.
The last new piece of information came from Mayor Bill Foster himself. The Mayor, who was dressed in a fashionable matching legal-pad-yellow shirt and tie, revealed that his parents "hate everything about" the Lens pier, and that the new Lens pier is about the future, not the older generation, saying "my parents will not be excited, I have written them off". Writing off an entire generation of people is pretty harsh Mr. Mayor.
Nothing else new was revealed, another meeting is scheduled "about 60 days from now" that is supposed to have more answers. Speaking of questions and answers, over a month ago, we submitted a list of 15 questions to Councilman Kornell to ask the Maltzan group, he never got back to us, but after this meeting, only 3 of those questions have been answered. We will be posting an updated list of "unanswered questions about the Lens pier" in the next few days.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Did Mayor Foster Laugh At Falling Graduation Rate?
Last week Mayor Bill Foster was the guest contestant on WQYK's radio question and answer contest "Veronica's College of Hollywood Knowledge"(audio link). Mayor Foster lost against Veronica and "flunked out" of her College of Hollywood Knowledge(which is actually a good thing in our opinion), but what really caught our attention was the banter with the Mayor before the questions started. He mentioned that he graduated from Northeast High School in the beautiful city of St. Petersburg, Veronica said she went to Osceola High School, to which the Mayor responded "Oh, I'm sorry", and then one of the hosts said "The Mayor went when there was a 90% graduation rate, it's a little different now" (We checked, and the 2012 graduation rate at Northeast High School was 62.4%). Then you can clearly hear Foster's jovial laughter in the background as he says "Yeah", and no other response is heard from him. Even though it didn't sound like it, we are hoping that was just uncomfortable laughter from the Mayor, but for a Mayor that has been named an "Education Mold Breaker", to make light of a 27% drop in graduation rate, his actions were just plain horrible.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Mayor Bill Foster Spent Like A Drunken Sailor On His Party's Party
Last week we covered how Mayor Foster's bet paid off for a piece of Tampa's RNC security federal tax money, but an article in the Tampa Bay Times today exposes how the preparations for that 4-hour private party ended up costing almost $600,000 more than Foster had budgeted, and that cost overrun will most likely have to be paid by the people of St. Petersburg.
Let's add up the costs of Sunday's private party for 8,000 Republican delegates and low-level members of the press. Pinellas county contributed $600,000 from tourist development funds, Hillsborough county contributed $400,000 from their tourist development funds, St. Petersburg received $1 million from the city of Tampa out of their $50 million allotment from federal tax funds, and on top of all of that, the city spent another $600,000 they didn't have on preparations for the pre-conference party. Grand total: $2.6 million dollars.
Breaking that down, we spent $325 on each delegate and member of the press that attended. Or to put it in other terms, that 4-hour private party cost as much as the entire operating subsidies for both Tropicana Field and the Pier, combined, for the whole year of 2012.
Earlier this month, Mayor Foster was quoted as saying, "I will not do anything that causes the city of St. Petersburg taxpayers to bear the costs of a private party." We would like to thank Bill Foster for his generous contribution, you can make your $600,000 personal check out to the City of St. Petersburg Mr. Mayor.
Let's add up the costs of Sunday's private party for 8,000 Republican delegates and low-level members of the press. Pinellas county contributed $600,000 from tourist development funds, Hillsborough county contributed $400,000 from their tourist development funds, St. Petersburg received $1 million from the city of Tampa out of their $50 million allotment from federal tax funds, and on top of all of that, the city spent another $600,000 they didn't have on preparations for the pre-conference party. Grand total: $2.6 million dollars.
Breaking that down, we spent $325 on each delegate and member of the press that attended. Or to put it in other terms, that 4-hour private party cost as much as the entire operating subsidies for both Tropicana Field and the Pier, combined, for the whole year of 2012.
Earlier this month, Mayor Foster was quoted as saying, "I will not do anything that causes the city of St. Petersburg taxpayers to bear the costs of a private party." We would like to thank Bill Foster for his generous contribution, you can make your $600,000 personal check out to the City of St. Petersburg Mr. Mayor.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Former Foster Foe Ford Files Suit on Future of the Pier
Mayor Foster will be squaring off in court against his former rival Kathleen Ford. Earlier this week, Ford filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and the thousands of other St. Petersburg voters that signed petitions to have the question of the future of the municipal Pier put on the ballot. The suit calls the city out on it's refusal to allow the referendum on renovating the Pier, as well as the city's ignoring of the charter requirement to hold a referendum on significantly altering city-owned waterfront property.
This shouldn't be a surprise for Mayor Bill Foster, he and his staff had pushed hard for the demolition of the Pier and they tried to craft legal language to avoid the charter referendum requirements. They also gave city council a slanted view of the Pier's ability to be renovated, resulting in all renovation proposals being excluded from the rushed pier design competition. Now the people of St. Petersburg will have to pay for Foster's actions. Even though the majority of people don't want the new Lens pier, our tax dollars will be used to defend it in court.
This shouldn't be a surprise for Mayor Bill Foster, he and his staff had pushed hard for the demolition of the Pier and they tried to craft legal language to avoid the charter referendum requirements. They also gave city council a slanted view of the Pier's ability to be renovated, resulting in all renovation proposals being excluded from the rushed pier design competition. Now the people of St. Petersburg will have to pay for Foster's actions. Even though the majority of people don't want the new Lens pier, our tax dollars will be used to defend it in court.
Mayor Foster's Ever-Changing Fire Fee
It started as a rather generic concept, charge every property owner in the city a flat fee for "fire readiness" as a way to generate revenue to fill the city's budget gap. Calling it a "fire fee" is about as true as saying lottery money goes to education, its just a way of shifting money around within the budget, there will be no budget increases or added funding stability for the fire department if this fire fee is enacted. Nobody but virtual-co-Mayor Kennedy would admit to understanding it at first, and it has been changed at least a dozen times since it was first proposed.
First it was going to be a flat fee, then Foster talked about making it a graduated fee, bigger for expensive properties than lower appraised ones(although nowhere near as graduated as the general property tax is).
The Mayor started by saying that non-profits would not be exempt, and then he came out this week saying that they would be exempt.
He was against offering exemptions for the poor, then came up with a complex "deferral" idea that would involve putting a lien on the property and charging interest and recording fees on top of it. Maybe the Mayor should get into the car-title-loan business too, it's not much of a leap from there, and we are unsure how deferring a tax payment can help the yearly budget if you don't see the money for years, or even decades.
City Council has gone along for the ride, voting for approval of the fire fee along with the large payments for legal services to try to get approval for it without even knowing the specifics of how the fire fee would be implemented. It's time for them to stop the wobbling fire-fee-train and pin Foster down on the specifics before they allow it to move any further.
First it was going to be a flat fee, then Foster talked about making it a graduated fee, bigger for expensive properties than lower appraised ones(although nowhere near as graduated as the general property tax is).
The Mayor started by saying that non-profits would not be exempt, and then he came out this week saying that they would be exempt.
He was against offering exemptions for the poor, then came up with a complex "deferral" idea that would involve putting a lien on the property and charging interest and recording fees on top of it. Maybe the Mayor should get into the car-title-loan business too, it's not much of a leap from there, and we are unsure how deferring a tax payment can help the yearly budget if you don't see the money for years, or even decades.
City Council has gone along for the ride, voting for approval of the fire fee along with the large payments for legal services to try to get approval for it without even knowing the specifics of how the fire fee would be implemented. It's time for them to stop the wobbling fire-fee-train and pin Foster down on the specifics before they allow it to move any further.
Former Foster Target For Closure, Historic Jennie Hall Pool Dedicated Last Weekend
In an update to a subject that we've covered before, the Jennie Hall Pool was dedicated as a historic landmark last weekend. Just last year, the pool was on Mayor Bill Foster's chopping block, then City Council decided to save the historic pool last year, in a rejection of Foster's attempts to delay its historic designation process and close the pool down as a cost saving measure. Thanks again to city council for preserving our city's history.
Update on Foster's Party's Party
Mayor Foster's gamble paid off, but it came down to the wire, last week Tampa's City Council approved the transfer of almost $1 million(out of the $50 million that they received) to St. Petersburg for security-related costs associated with hosting the RNC pre-conference party. So Foster gets a big piece of government cheese(our federal tax dollars) to host a private party for his political buddies. He doesn't even try to hide the fact that this party won't generate immediate benefits to the city the night everyone is in town."Hopefully they will come back to the city of St. Petersburg," Foster said. "The welcome mat is up and we are open for business." Of course if you look at the pictures in that article, all the party-goers will see of St. Petersburg is the highway and a whole lot of barricades around the Trop. Heck, they can't even walk across the street to Ferg's where Ron Paul's after-party there had to be canceled and moved across the bay to Tampa. So the net loss of an entire weekend's worth of business for a good portion of downtown St. Petersburg's businesses, and a whole lot of city employee overtime, is about all we will be getting out of this event.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Who Will Pay For Foster's Party's Party?
There have been several articles over the last few days about Mayor Bill Foster asking Tampa to pay for some of the costs for the Republican party's party at Tropicana field later this month. We've covered it twice before, and Mayor Foster has said a few conflicting things about who is paying for it over the last nine months. Back in January, Foster said the costs could run "well into six-figures". Then in March he said that "he expected that the city would end up covering some of the costs", yet in June he said "There won't be any general-operating funds used for this event." So which is it Mr. Mayor, who is going to pay for your party's party at the Trop?
He sent a letter to Tampa's Mayor Bob Buckhorn earlier last month asking for some money, and has yet to receive any kind of response. Foster's backup plan is to ask the host committee for money, although the Trop party is not actually part of the convention.
Another expense that is overlooked in this is the $270,000 that Foster pushed through City Council for security cameras for the event, again he had no guarantees on outside money to cover those costs either. To get approval for that expense, City Council had also been told that the cameras could be moved after the event, but after the vote Foster then said they couldn't.
Why is the Mayor gambling with our money? He has bet that he can get someone else to pay for these expenses, without any kind of contract or assurance from these outside organizations that they will pay, and in the process he has played fast-and-loose with the facts to the city council and people of St. Petersburg.
The worst-case scenario is that the people of St. Petersburg will spend a half-million dollars on this one-day closed party for Republican delegates and the press. And Mayor Foster will have lied to the people once again, to get what he wants.
He sent a letter to Tampa's Mayor Bob Buckhorn earlier last month asking for some money, and has yet to receive any kind of response. Foster's backup plan is to ask the host committee for money, although the Trop party is not actually part of the convention.
Another expense that is overlooked in this is the $270,000 that Foster pushed through City Council for security cameras for the event, again he had no guarantees on outside money to cover those costs either. To get approval for that expense, City Council had also been told that the cameras could be moved after the event, but after the vote Foster then said they couldn't.
Why is the Mayor gambling with our money? He has bet that he can get someone else to pay for these expenses, without any kind of contract or assurance from these outside organizations that they will pay, and in the process he has played fast-and-loose with the facts to the city council and people of St. Petersburg.
The worst-case scenario is that the people of St. Petersburg will spend a half-million dollars on this one-day closed party for Republican delegates and the press. And Mayor Foster will have lied to the people once again, to get what he wants.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Mayor Foster And Police Chases
We were going to post a story last week about the Gulfport police chase, the resulting crash with a bus and a building, and Mayor Foster's criticism of it. But right before we did, there was a similar crash after a police chase, which was started right here in St. Petersburg. Both police chases were of stolen vehicles, the St. Petersburg initiated crash was related to string of burglaries in an upper-class area of the city, but the results were the same, a lot of twisted metal, and several people going to the hospital.
We are conflicted with the debate about police chases, offenders need to be caught, but is the collateral damage too high a price to pay when the suspects are almost always repeat offenders that we would have caught soon anyway? Is it worth sending innocent people to the hospital when the police or a criminal crashes into them because of the chase?
We went back to the horrific case of innocent driver Thomas Atherton, who was killed during a high speed police chase, his car was cut in two by a police cruiser chasing a man fleeing north in the southbound lanes of I-275. This is one of the cases that helped to change the police chase policy in the first place, the thinking was that the collateral damage is not worth chasing a non-violent offender. So the policy was changed to only allow chases when the offender was involved in a violent felony. That policy was then changed when Bill Foster became Mayor in 2009, allowing police chases in more cases.
Earlier this year there was the case of purse-snatcher Kenneth Gordon Davis Jr. who died after he crashed while being chased by police. The crash also sent six other people to the hospital. Davis was known to police, and he was unarmed, but because purse snatching is classified as a violent felony they decided to chase him, and a half-dozen people ended up paying the price for that decision.
As for last week's police chase crash, it came out that the suspects in the fleeing vehicle were all wanted for questioning in several burglaries, and one had already been positively identified by fingerprints, they were also not armed. This crash sent four other people to the hospital.
So we have 10 innocent people hospitalized(with several critically injured) in just these two St. Petersburg initiated crashes, to catch known suspects that were unarmed. In these cases, the human cost was too high, the suspects should not have been chased.
Back to the recent Gulfport-initiated crash, Mayor Foster immediately had some harsh words for the Gulfport police saying "They got to own this one... That pursuit wouldn't have been authorized by the St. Petersburg Police Department.". Yet when asked about the Davis police chase a few months ago he was much more reserved, "I'm waiting for the facts and the investigation to be concluded before I can comment... With any authorized pursuit there are a number of conditions that must be weighed." He is reserved when it could be his fault, but quick to place blame when he's in the clear.
The Gulfport Gabber had some criticism of it's own for Foster, saying "Mr. Foster, an attorney specializing in real estate, probate and corporate law, lists no law enforcement experience on his resume." Suggesting that Mayor Foster should stop arm-chair quarterbacking, and stick to things that he knows about.
Earlier this year, a Tampa Bay Times editorial called for a review of police chase policy in St. Petersburg. We agree with the Times, we think that in cases where the suspect is unarmed, and known to police, that the chase should be called off immediately, the human cost has proven to be too high.
We are conflicted with the debate about police chases, offenders need to be caught, but is the collateral damage too high a price to pay when the suspects are almost always repeat offenders that we would have caught soon anyway? Is it worth sending innocent people to the hospital when the police or a criminal crashes into them because of the chase?
We went back to the horrific case of innocent driver Thomas Atherton, who was killed during a high speed police chase, his car was cut in two by a police cruiser chasing a man fleeing north in the southbound lanes of I-275. This is one of the cases that helped to change the police chase policy in the first place, the thinking was that the collateral damage is not worth chasing a non-violent offender. So the policy was changed to only allow chases when the offender was involved in a violent felony. That policy was then changed when Bill Foster became Mayor in 2009, allowing police chases in more cases.
Earlier this year there was the case of purse-snatcher Kenneth Gordon Davis Jr. who died after he crashed while being chased by police. The crash also sent six other people to the hospital. Davis was known to police, and he was unarmed, but because purse snatching is classified as a violent felony they decided to chase him, and a half-dozen people ended up paying the price for that decision.
As for last week's police chase crash, it came out that the suspects in the fleeing vehicle were all wanted for questioning in several burglaries, and one had already been positively identified by fingerprints, they were also not armed. This crash sent four other people to the hospital.
So we have 10 innocent people hospitalized(with several critically injured) in just these two St. Petersburg initiated crashes, to catch known suspects that were unarmed. In these cases, the human cost was too high, the suspects should not have been chased.
Back to the recent Gulfport-initiated crash, Mayor Foster immediately had some harsh words for the Gulfport police saying "They got to own this one... That pursuit wouldn't have been authorized by the St. Petersburg Police Department.". Yet when asked about the Davis police chase a few months ago he was much more reserved, "I'm waiting for the facts and the investigation to be concluded before I can comment... With any authorized pursuit there are a number of conditions that must be weighed." He is reserved when it could be his fault, but quick to place blame when he's in the clear.
The Gulfport Gabber had some criticism of it's own for Foster, saying "Mr. Foster, an attorney specializing in real estate, probate and corporate law, lists no law enforcement experience on his resume." Suggesting that Mayor Foster should stop arm-chair quarterbacking, and stick to things that he knows about.
Earlier this year, a Tampa Bay Times editorial called for a review of police chase policy in St. Petersburg. We agree with the Times, we think that in cases where the suspect is unarmed, and known to police, that the chase should be called off immediately, the human cost has proven to be too high.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
The "New Pier" Presentation by Lisa Wannemacher
A couple of weeks ago, we posted our top ten list for things to do out on the new Lens pier. Now Mayor Foster has taken to calling it "The New Pier" instead of the Lens, because he says the competition is over, and we need to brand this as the new pier instead of just some design concept. In furtherance of that goal, he got Lisa Wannemacher from the local architectural firm that is working with Michael Maltzan Architecture on the Lens pier to make a presentation right before the successful referendum vote at last Thursday's city council meeting.
First, some notes about Lisa Wannemacher herself. She was present at many of the pier task force meetings, often advocating for the demolishing of the existing pier and the building of a new pier structure, even claiming that "renovating pier approach would cost most or all of $50M and public wouldn't like that since nothing changed". Of course she offered no evidence of this, no study was done to back up her claims of no public support, but this statement she made was taken as fact by the task force and included in several of their notes and recommendation drafts.
Also, voteonthepier.com found out that Wannemacher and her husband own Cassis American Brasserie, a restaurant on 2nd Avenue North, right on the approach to the Pier. It might seem to some like a conflict of interest for the owner of a restaurant that would benefit significantly from the demolition of several competing restaurants on the Pier, to be advocating for the demolition of those restaurants, and the building of a pier that could not house any significant retail or restaurant space. Here is a link from Philippe Berriot's Linked-in page, that shows one of his "Company website" links as Wannamaker's architectural firm, as well as the pair owning several "BW"(Berriot-Wannemacher) businesses together.
Now on to the "New Pier" presentation itself.
It started with the list of things to do out on the pier, this list had a lot of small print, and it was only on the screen for a few seconds for the day and night lists, we had to pause the video to write the list down, and here is the list of the 27 activities out on the new Lens pier(with land-side activities and duplicates removed):
Casual dining, Bayside fishing, Refreshments, Gelato shop, Spectacular view, Reef viewing and education, Dockside fishing, Pelican feeding, Electric boat rentals, Transient boating, Kayak rentals, Dockside drinks, Concessions, Water taxi, Pier walks, Shaded balconies, Biking, Roller Blading, Walking, Live music, Light shows, Movie projections, Boat drive-in movies, Evening walks, Intimate balconies, Family outings, Night fishing, Skyline views.
The problem is that several of these seem to be duplicates, like "casual dining, refreshments, gelato shop, concessions, dockside drinks", so we just grouped these all under the heading of "Food & Drink". We also condensed the several "Views" activities into "Signtseeing". There are several separate activities related to "Boating", and "Walking, Evening walks, Biking and Roller Blading" are all listed separately as well.
We aren't too sure what exactly "Reef viewing and education" means, since the reef won't really be viewable in the murky water so we'll remove that one.
Next was "Water taxi", which is a bit confusing, since the inner harbor of the Lens pier won't allow for boats larger than 20 or so feet, and any viable water taxi would need to be twice that size, which wouldn't fit, so we'll remove that one.
"Live music" is mentioned, but as much as we've looked, we can't seem to find a reference to how many people can safely gather out on the Lens pier to watch the live music.
"Light shows" are listed, but those didn't seem to last too long when they were tried in the 80s.
"Movie projections" and "Boat-in movies" are also listed separately, but are really the same thing.
We were also wondering how "Shaded balconies" was an activity, then we saw what that changed into at night: "Intimate balconies". Burst of laughter at that point, those must be SOME balconies they are planning on building if you can get "intimate" on them at night. Do you think the city would exempt those balconies from the public exposure ordinances?
In the end, we arrive at only 10 unique activities, and even some of those are pretty weak "Food & Drink, Fishing, Sight-seeing, Pelican feeding, Boating, Pier walks, Biking and Roller Blading, Live music, Light shows, Movie projections"
After showing the activities lists, Lisa Wannemacher says "over 30 activities one can do at the new pier... there will be plenty to do". Just because you list the same things multiple times, doesn't mean you get to count them multiple times Ms. Wannemacher.
Then she showed a picture of an old beer grotto complete with stone walls, we're not sure how you give the feeling of a beer grotto without ANY walls, especially when the sideways rain starts pouring in on a summer afternoon out on the Lens pier.
She did a comparison of the 1926 pier pilings to the new Lens pier design pilings. A bit unfair comparing almost 90 year old building techniques to today. If she was being fair she would compare it to the "Wave" pier design which is much closer to how a renovated pier approach would be constructed, with a lot fewer support pilings.
New features like inner-harbor water buffers, shaded walkway balconies, the expanded promontory area and several others are mentioned, but all of these new features cost money, and there is no money for these things in the Maltzan budget. As we have covered before, they already had to shrink the Lens, move it closer to the shore, remove the railings and replace them with concrete walls, remove the wood planking, the docent theater and over a dozen other features just to fit within the $45 million budget. No mention is made of how these new features will be paid for.
At the end, she tried to compare the Lens pier to the St. Louis Gateway Arch, which is a bit of a stretch since the Arch would cost more than double what the Lens is budgeted for if it was built today, and the Arch's design competition lasted for 3 years instead of only a few months like the Lens. "Functionally, it is an observatory" she said about the Lens, which just contradicted most of what she had said previously about there being "plenty to do" on the Lens pier.
The presentation itself was nice, but after analyzing the details in the presentation it is clear that it was all flash and very little substance. Not much at all has really changed after this presentation.
First, some notes about Lisa Wannemacher herself. She was present at many of the pier task force meetings, often advocating for the demolishing of the existing pier and the building of a new pier structure, even claiming that "renovating pier approach would cost most or all of $50M and public wouldn't like that since nothing changed". Of course she offered no evidence of this, no study was done to back up her claims of no public support, but this statement she made was taken as fact by the task force and included in several of their notes and recommendation drafts.
Also, voteonthepier.com found out that Wannemacher and her husband own Cassis American Brasserie, a restaurant on 2nd Avenue North, right on the approach to the Pier. It might seem to some like a conflict of interest for the owner of a restaurant that would benefit significantly from the demolition of several competing restaurants on the Pier, to be advocating for the demolition of those restaurants, and the building of a pier that could not house any significant retail or restaurant space. Here is a link from Philippe Berriot's Linked-in page, that shows one of his "Company website" links as Wannamaker's architectural firm, as well as the pair owning several "BW"(Berriot-Wannemacher) businesses together.
Now on to the "New Pier" presentation itself.
It started with the list of things to do out on the pier, this list had a lot of small print, and it was only on the screen for a few seconds for the day and night lists, we had to pause the video to write the list down, and here is the list of the 27 activities out on the new Lens pier(with land-side activities and duplicates removed):
Casual dining, Bayside fishing, Refreshments, Gelato shop, Spectacular view, Reef viewing and education, Dockside fishing, Pelican feeding, Electric boat rentals, Transient boating, Kayak rentals, Dockside drinks, Concessions, Water taxi, Pier walks, Shaded balconies, Biking, Roller Blading, Walking, Live music, Light shows, Movie projections, Boat drive-in movies, Evening walks, Intimate balconies, Family outings, Night fishing, Skyline views.
The problem is that several of these seem to be duplicates, like "casual dining, refreshments, gelato shop, concessions, dockside drinks", so we just grouped these all under the heading of "Food & Drink". We also condensed the several "Views" activities into "Signtseeing". There are several separate activities related to "Boating", and "Walking, Evening walks, Biking and Roller Blading" are all listed separately as well.
We aren't too sure what exactly "Reef viewing and education" means, since the reef won't really be viewable in the murky water so we'll remove that one.
Next was "Water taxi", which is a bit confusing, since the inner harbor of the Lens pier won't allow for boats larger than 20 or so feet, and any viable water taxi would need to be twice that size, which wouldn't fit, so we'll remove that one.
"Live music" is mentioned, but as much as we've looked, we can't seem to find a reference to how many people can safely gather out on the Lens pier to watch the live music.
"Light shows" are listed, but those didn't seem to last too long when they were tried in the 80s.
"Movie projections" and "Boat-in movies" are also listed separately, but are really the same thing.
We were also wondering how "Shaded balconies" was an activity, then we saw what that changed into at night: "Intimate balconies". Burst of laughter at that point, those must be SOME balconies they are planning on building if you can get "intimate" on them at night. Do you think the city would exempt those balconies from the public exposure ordinances?
In the end, we arrive at only 10 unique activities, and even some of those are pretty weak "Food & Drink, Fishing, Sight-seeing, Pelican feeding, Boating, Pier walks, Biking and Roller Blading, Live music, Light shows, Movie projections"
After showing the activities lists, Lisa Wannemacher says "over 30 activities one can do at the new pier... there will be plenty to do". Just because you list the same things multiple times, doesn't mean you get to count them multiple times Ms. Wannemacher.
Then she showed a picture of an old beer grotto complete with stone walls, we're not sure how you give the feeling of a beer grotto without ANY walls, especially when the sideways rain starts pouring in on a summer afternoon out on the Lens pier.
She did a comparison of the 1926 pier pilings to the new Lens pier design pilings. A bit unfair comparing almost 90 year old building techniques to today. If she was being fair she would compare it to the "Wave" pier design which is much closer to how a renovated pier approach would be constructed, with a lot fewer support pilings.
New features like inner-harbor water buffers, shaded walkway balconies, the expanded promontory area and several others are mentioned, but all of these new features cost money, and there is no money for these things in the Maltzan budget. As we have covered before, they already had to shrink the Lens, move it closer to the shore, remove the railings and replace them with concrete walls, remove the wood planking, the docent theater and over a dozen other features just to fit within the $45 million budget. No mention is made of how these new features will be paid for.
At the end, she tried to compare the Lens pier to the St. Louis Gateway Arch, which is a bit of a stretch since the Arch would cost more than double what the Lens is budgeted for if it was built today, and the Arch's design competition lasted for 3 years instead of only a few months like the Lens. "Functionally, it is an observatory" she said about the Lens, which just contradicted most of what she had said previously about there being "plenty to do" on the Lens pier.
The presentation itself was nice, but after analyzing the details in the presentation it is clear that it was all flash and very little substance. Not much at all has really changed after this presentation.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
The Pier Referendum Vote
The vote last Thursday was 5 to 3, in favor of putting "some kind of question" on the November general election ballot about the Pier. Curran, Danner and Kennedy were the "no" votes.
There was heated discussion for almost 2 hours amongst the council members about the ballot question issue and the Pier design process as a whole. Mayor Foster offered his own symbolic support for a referendum, saying: "They've been working on this for two years... The process was not designed to stop a referendum... If they get the signatures, they've earned it... now, the signatures have been verified... to me, I think they deserve something on the ballot."
We applaud Mayor Foster for his stance, even though it was an easy position for him to take, because he doesn't get to vote on the issue, and even if the referendum had not been approved he could have said he tried.
Council-chair Curran and councilman Danner(who have both been very vocal about their support for demolishing the Pier for over two years) got very upset that a referendum on the pier might be approved, they tried argument after argument to try to convince their fellow council members to not approve a referendum on the ballot. The desperate tone to their voices and poorly thought out arguments were really just sad to watch.
Here are some of Danner's points: Councilman Newton had many chances and nobody seconded his motions, the referendum question isn't valid, council should have started the referendum process earlier, the vote on the pier group has spread too much misinformation, we've already looked at ways to save the pier, if there is a referendum we can't advocate for the Lens pier.
Here are some of Curran's points: The people that signed these petitions only wanted this one question on the ballot not just some question, the people that went through the pier design process need to be represented too, the petition gathering was funded by someone who didn't like the Lens, the one thing that people don't like or understand is change, I do not feel that I am cutting anybody short by voting no, the petition is from Safety Harbor not St. Petersburg, nobody will want to go through a city design process again if we overthrow this one.
Councilman Kennedy also ended up voting "no" because he said a vote won't make the pier pilings stable and it won't change the subsidy, he ignored any options for reinforcing the caissons and he also completely missed the point that the people don't want the Lens.
All three of the "no" voters ignored the spirit of the verified referendum petitions, that people don't feel like they have been heard in this "open" process, and that the majority of people don't like the Lens.
We have covered this process before in quite a few postings here on BillFosterWatch, and it is clear that there is a big divide in the city on this issue, and ignoring the referendum petitions would have only made that divide worse. We would like to thank the 5 councilmen who did the right thing and voted "yes", especially Councilman Newton who was the lone voice of the people for these last 20 months after council voted to demolish the Pier(at Mayor Foster's urging) at an unannounced meeting with no public input allowed.
Hopefully city council will put some unbiased questions on the ballot, and will follow through with what the people vote for in November.
Up next, an analysis of the "New Pier Presentation" that Lisa Wannemacher gave at the same meeting last Thursday...
There was heated discussion for almost 2 hours amongst the council members about the ballot question issue and the Pier design process as a whole. Mayor Foster offered his own symbolic support for a referendum, saying: "They've been working on this for two years... The process was not designed to stop a referendum... If they get the signatures, they've earned it... now, the signatures have been verified... to me, I think they deserve something on the ballot."
We applaud Mayor Foster for his stance, even though it was an easy position for him to take, because he doesn't get to vote on the issue, and even if the referendum had not been approved he could have said he tried.
Council-chair Curran and councilman Danner(who have both been very vocal about their support for demolishing the Pier for over two years) got very upset that a referendum on the pier might be approved, they tried argument after argument to try to convince their fellow council members to not approve a referendum on the ballot. The desperate tone to their voices and poorly thought out arguments were really just sad to watch.
Here are some of Danner's points: Councilman Newton had many chances and nobody seconded his motions, the referendum question isn't valid, council should have started the referendum process earlier, the vote on the pier group has spread too much misinformation, we've already looked at ways to save the pier, if there is a referendum we can't advocate for the Lens pier.
Here are some of Curran's points: The people that signed these petitions only wanted this one question on the ballot not just some question, the people that went through the pier design process need to be represented too, the petition gathering was funded by someone who didn't like the Lens, the one thing that people don't like or understand is change, I do not feel that I am cutting anybody short by voting no, the petition is from Safety Harbor not St. Petersburg, nobody will want to go through a city design process again if we overthrow this one.
Councilman Kennedy also ended up voting "no" because he said a vote won't make the pier pilings stable and it won't change the subsidy, he ignored any options for reinforcing the caissons and he also completely missed the point that the people don't want the Lens.
All three of the "no" voters ignored the spirit of the verified referendum petitions, that people don't feel like they have been heard in this "open" process, and that the majority of people don't like the Lens.
We have covered this process before in quite a few postings here on BillFosterWatch, and it is clear that there is a big divide in the city on this issue, and ignoring the referendum petitions would have only made that divide worse. We would like to thank the 5 councilmen who did the right thing and voted "yes", especially Councilman Newton who was the lone voice of the people for these last 20 months after council voted to demolish the Pier(at Mayor Foster's urging) at an unannounced meeting with no public input allowed.
Hopefully city council will put some unbiased questions on the ballot, and will follow through with what the people vote for in November.
Up next, an analysis of the "New Pier Presentation" that Lisa Wannemacher gave at the same meeting last Thursday...
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Mayor Bill Foster Sets A New Fee-Raising Record
Today the Patch reported that Mayor Foster will be proposing later this month to raise 60 existing fees and add 29 new fees, most of them aimed at St. Petersburg businesses. It seems that Foster has gone "fee-crazy" while he is also pushing for a massive new "fire readiness fee", and less than a year after raising dozens of permitting related fees as well as adding new ones. Add on to this the hundreds of new parking meters he added, as well as his doubling of the parking meter rates and the raised parking fines he pushed for to punish the "spoiled" residents of St. Petersburg.
This latest fee assault is mostly aimed at businesses, but it also targets the city's dog-friendly restaurants. Yes, you read that correctly, one of the new fees is going to be a "Dog Dining Permit" that any restaurant which allows outside dining will have to pay for to allow patrons to eat with their dogs while outside. This will affect hundreds of businesses around the city with outside seating, and if a restaurant doesn't pay for the new permit, they are subject to up to a $1000 fine if a dog is seen in their outside dining area.
For a full list of the proposed new and raised fees, here is a link to the city website.
This latest fee assault is mostly aimed at businesses, but it also targets the city's dog-friendly restaurants. Yes, you read that correctly, one of the new fees is going to be a "Dog Dining Permit" that any restaurant which allows outside dining will have to pay for to allow patrons to eat with their dogs while outside. This will affect hundreds of businesses around the city with outside seating, and if a restaurant doesn't pay for the new permit, they are subject to up to a $1000 fine if a dog is seen in their outside dining area.
For a full list of the proposed new and raised fees, here is a link to the city website.
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Foster's Top Ten Reasons To Constantly Go Out To The Lens Pier
This piece on Fox13 about the voteonthepier.com group turning in 15,000 petitions on Friday had a great quote from Mayor Bill Foster about him sending two staff members to Maltzan's office to meet with the architect about the Lens pier design:
"My instructions to my staff: don't come back from California without ten visuals, the top ten reasons why [we] are going to constantly go out to the new St. Pete Pier"
We initially thought this might be another Foster cost-cutting measure, a way for him to get rid of two staff members by giving them an impossible task and telling them that they can't come back until they complete it. But then we thought of ten ways all by ourselves to get people to "constantly" go out to the new Lens pier.
So in the David Letterman tradition, here are the top ten ways to get the citizens of St Petersburg to keep going out to the pier:
Number 10: Put a parking ticket payment booth out at the end of the pier, and offer a 10% discount on your bill if you pay out there
Mayor Foster has doubled the price of parking meters and added hundreds of new parking meters around downtown just in the last two years, causing a lot more parking tickets to be issued. Putting a parking ticket booth at the end of the Lens pier won't take up much space, and it will force people in search of a discount out on to the Lens pier.
Number 9: Promote the "Manatee vs. Speed Boat Destruction Derby" shown in the Lens pier marketing materials
Boats and Manatees together at last, what could go wrong? How about we outfit the manatees with armor, and boat-piercing flipper gloves, then they would have a fighting chance. The city could even sell it as the latest reality show, complete with underwater cameras to showcase that crystal-clear water around the Lens pier.
Number 8: The end of the Lens pier will be the only private place in downtown
With Mayor Foster spending another $270,000 to put more surveillance cameras all over downtown, the Lens pier will be the only place to get some privacy away from Big Brother Foster's prying eyes.
Number 7: Make visiting the Lens pier count as community service for school children and non-violent offenders
If you can't get people out there voluntarily, then force them out there. Many school kids need community service to graduate, and there are always non-violent offenders in need of community service hours. So what better community service than helping the city to justify it's $50 million boondoggle by making it seem popular? All you would have to do is walk out to the end of the Lens pier, and the parking ticket booth attendant, from Number 10, can sign the community service forms.
Number 6: Scrub your own name into the algae on the Lens pier
Give people the chance to scrub their own name in the the algae that will grow on the constantly wet concrete at the end of the Lens pier. It will help to keep them less slippery, and people can have a temporary graffiti picture memento of their trip to the Lens pier. It will always grow back, so they have to keep coming back to do it again.
Number 5: Scrub your own name into the bird droppings on the Lens pier
See Number 6 above, except with the bird guano that will be all over the Lens pier.
Number 4: Get St. Petersburg College to offer an Underwater Basket Weaving course out on the Lens pier
Every college kid needs an easy-credit course, so why not the perennial favorite, underwater basket weaving out at the end of the Lens pier.
Number 3: Hand out virtual reality glasses, so you can pretend you are somewhere other than the Lens pier
Since the Lens pier itself will get kind of boring after the first time you visit, the city should lend visitors virtual reality glasses so they can pretend they are somewhere else every time they go to the Lens pier.
Number 2: Put some of those Redbox and Blockbuster DVD rental vending machines out there
We always see people at those DVD vending machines at Publix and Walgreens, but there aren't many in downtown, so to get the residents of downtown to go to the Lens pier, just put a bunch of those at the end. Like the parking ticket booth, they won't take up much space, and you are guaranteed repeat visitors.
And The Number 1 Way To Keep People Going To The Lens Pier.... GELATO!
We must have heard the word "Gelato" hundreds of times in reference to the Lens Pier and what is out at the end waiting for us. It is the only thing that all city staff members can think of when asked what there is to do out there, it's their go-to answer, so we had to make the undeniable lure of this magical frozen wonder treat number 1 on the countdown.
There you go Mayor Foster, we came up with your ten ways to get people to constantly go out to the Lens pier, no need to spend thousands of taxpayer dollars to send city employees on a week-long California vacation now.
"My instructions to my staff: don't come back from California without ten visuals, the top ten reasons why [we] are going to constantly go out to the new St. Pete Pier"
We initially thought this might be another Foster cost-cutting measure, a way for him to get rid of two staff members by giving them an impossible task and telling them that they can't come back until they complete it. But then we thought of ten ways all by ourselves to get people to "constantly" go out to the new Lens pier.
So in the David Letterman tradition, here are the top ten ways to get the citizens of St Petersburg to keep going out to the pier:
Number 10: Put a parking ticket payment booth out at the end of the pier, and offer a 10% discount on your bill if you pay out there
Mayor Foster has doubled the price of parking meters and added hundreds of new parking meters around downtown just in the last two years, causing a lot more parking tickets to be issued. Putting a parking ticket booth at the end of the Lens pier won't take up much space, and it will force people in search of a discount out on to the Lens pier.
Number 9: Promote the "Manatee vs. Speed Boat Destruction Derby" shown in the Lens pier marketing materials
Boats and Manatees together at last, what could go wrong? How about we outfit the manatees with armor, and boat-piercing flipper gloves, then they would have a fighting chance. The city could even sell it as the latest reality show, complete with underwater cameras to showcase that crystal-clear water around the Lens pier.
Number 8: The end of the Lens pier will be the only private place in downtown
With Mayor Foster spending another $270,000 to put more surveillance cameras all over downtown, the Lens pier will be the only place to get some privacy away from Big Brother Foster's prying eyes.
Number 7: Make visiting the Lens pier count as community service for school children and non-violent offenders
If you can't get people out there voluntarily, then force them out there. Many school kids need community service to graduate, and there are always non-violent offenders in need of community service hours. So what better community service than helping the city to justify it's $50 million boondoggle by making it seem popular? All you would have to do is walk out to the end of the Lens pier, and the parking ticket booth attendant, from Number 10, can sign the community service forms.
Number 6: Scrub your own name into the algae on the Lens pier
Give people the chance to scrub their own name in the the algae that will grow on the constantly wet concrete at the end of the Lens pier. It will help to keep them less slippery, and people can have a temporary graffiti picture memento of their trip to the Lens pier. It will always grow back, so they have to keep coming back to do it again.
Number 5: Scrub your own name into the bird droppings on the Lens pier
See Number 6 above, except with the bird guano that will be all over the Lens pier.
Number 4: Get St. Petersburg College to offer an Underwater Basket Weaving course out on the Lens pier
Every college kid needs an easy-credit course, so why not the perennial favorite, underwater basket weaving out at the end of the Lens pier.
Number 3: Hand out virtual reality glasses, so you can pretend you are somewhere other than the Lens pier
Since the Lens pier itself will get kind of boring after the first time you visit, the city should lend visitors virtual reality glasses so they can pretend they are somewhere else every time they go to the Lens pier.
Number 2: Put some of those Redbox and Blockbuster DVD rental vending machines out there
We always see people at those DVD vending machines at Publix and Walgreens, but there aren't many in downtown, so to get the residents of downtown to go to the Lens pier, just put a bunch of those at the end. Like the parking ticket booth, they won't take up much space, and you are guaranteed repeat visitors.
And The Number 1 Way To Keep People Going To The Lens Pier.... GELATO!
We must have heard the word "Gelato" hundreds of times in reference to the Lens Pier and what is out at the end waiting for us. It is the only thing that all city staff members can think of when asked what there is to do out there, it's their go-to answer, so we had to make the undeniable lure of this magical frozen wonder treat number 1 on the countdown.
There you go Mayor Foster, we came up with your ten ways to get people to constantly go out to the Lens pier, no need to spend thousands of taxpayer dollars to send city employees on a week-long California vacation now.
Monday, July 2, 2012
What If Foster's Pier Thinking Were Applied To Tropicana Field?
We ran across this article from last year in the St. Petersburg Times about the rising subsidy that the city has to pay to keep Tropicana Field running and the Rays playing games there, and this sentence really stood out for us:
"Costs usually outpace revenues $1 million to $2 million a year, creating an operating subsidy on top of St. Petersburg's annual $6 million debt service on the Trop construction bonds."
So, lets just average that out and say there is a $1.5 million net operating subsidy each year on the Trop and the Rays(exactly the same as the subsidy on the Pier), and added to that there is another $6 million the city pays each year on the debt for the costs to build the Trop. The Pier generates $74 million in economic impact to the city each year on $1.5 million in net costs, and the Trop and the Rays generate a $92.5 million economic impact to the city each year on $7.5 million in net costs(of course this doesn't include the "little" expenses that the city has spent on both structures over the last several years either, just the fixed yearly costs.)
<abacus clattering>
For more than a decade, for each dollar the city has spent on the Trop and Rays we got $12.33 back, and for each city dollar spent on the Pier we got $49.33 back. Which one seems like a better business model to you?
The answer is that both are worth keeping, they are both strong assets for the city of St. Petersburg, and you can't find their equals across the bay in Tampa. They both generate many times more dollars in economic impact than they cost to maintain, and they are both icons of our city.
So why is Mayor Bill Foster determined to destroy a city icon that has a much better economic rate of return than Rays Baseball?
It may be because Foster is a "sports guy", he goes to Rays games all the time, and he almost never goes to the Pier, so it could be a simple personal preference.
But maybe he is really laser-focused on reducing all city subsidies(like the Pier, the Coliseum and Mahaffey Theater), and if the Rays weren't under contract he would do the same thing to Tropicana Field as he is trying to do the the Pier, tear it down and build a cheaper stadium with one-third the size of the current yearly subsidy.
Imagine a smaller(but very artsy), minor-league baseball stadium sitting where Tropicana Field is now. No dome or air-conditioning to keep spectators dry and cool. No in-stadium restaurants. No events other than baseball games taking place, and a much much smaller economic impact. That could be the future for the Trop under a Foster "subsidy reduction at all costs" plan like the one he is pushing with the Lens Pier. And as for the Rays, they would go the way of the pelicans that have called the Pier home for generations, off to a better roost, where they are wanted, perhaps in Hillsborough County close to the water somewhere.
"Costs usually outpace revenues $1 million to $2 million a year, creating an operating subsidy on top of St. Petersburg's annual $6 million debt service on the Trop construction bonds."
So, lets just average that out and say there is a $1.5 million net operating subsidy each year on the Trop and the Rays(exactly the same as the subsidy on the Pier), and added to that there is another $6 million the city pays each year on the debt for the costs to build the Trop. The Pier generates $74 million in economic impact to the city each year on $1.5 million in net costs, and the Trop and the Rays generate a $92.5 million economic impact to the city each year on $7.5 million in net costs(of course this doesn't include the "little" expenses that the city has spent on both structures over the last several years either, just the fixed yearly costs.)
<abacus clattering>
For more than a decade, for each dollar the city has spent on the Trop and Rays we got $12.33 back, and for each city dollar spent on the Pier we got $49.33 back. Which one seems like a better business model to you?
The answer is that both are worth keeping, they are both strong assets for the city of St. Petersburg, and you can't find their equals across the bay in Tampa. They both generate many times more dollars in economic impact than they cost to maintain, and they are both icons of our city.
So why is Mayor Bill Foster determined to destroy a city icon that has a much better economic rate of return than Rays Baseball?
It may be because Foster is a "sports guy", he goes to Rays games all the time, and he almost never goes to the Pier, so it could be a simple personal preference.
But maybe he is really laser-focused on reducing all city subsidies(like the Pier, the Coliseum and Mahaffey Theater), and if the Rays weren't under contract he would do the same thing to Tropicana Field as he is trying to do the the Pier, tear it down and build a cheaper stadium with one-third the size of the current yearly subsidy.
Imagine a smaller(but very artsy), minor-league baseball stadium sitting where Tropicana Field is now. No dome or air-conditioning to keep spectators dry and cool. No in-stadium restaurants. No events other than baseball games taking place, and a much much smaller economic impact. That could be the future for the Trop under a Foster "subsidy reduction at all costs" plan like the one he is pushing with the Lens Pier. And as for the Rays, they would go the way of the pelicans that have called the Pier home for generations, off to a better roost, where they are wanted, perhaps in Hillsborough County close to the water somewhere.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Breakfast With The Mayor At Bob Evans... Again
Mayor Bill Foster is having his next "Breakfast with the Mayor" event at Bob Evans restaurant, again. Although this one will be at a different branch of the Ohio-based, billion-dollar, 570 location restaurant chain's stores than Mayor Foster held his Breakfast event at just two months ago. What does it say about the Mayor that less than a week before "Independents Week" he is holding yet another event at a major chain restaurant? In fact, half of Foster's Breakfast events this year have been held at major chain restaurants instead of the dozens of local restaurants that offer breakfast.
Looking back at the last two years, Mayor Foster chose to hold these informal Breakfast events almost exclusively at locally owned restaurants or institutions, so what changed this year? The answer may lie in what kind of effect having the Mayor over for breakfast has on the host restaurant. We talked to a couple of employees at one of the restaurants that hosted a Breakfast with the Mayor a while back, and were told that "all of our regulars stayed away when they heard that the Mayor was going to be here, we were less than half full until after he left, then things returned to normal". Or maybe it has more to do with Mayor Foster's recent revelation at a Lens Pier visioning meeting that he encourages people to shop at large corporate-owned stores instead of locally owned establishments. Either way, it's another slap in the face of the whole "shop local" movement, just a week after he posed for a picture at the proclamation ceremony for Independents Week.
Just a side note while we are on the subject of the Mayor promoting things from outside of the city, can someone tell the person in charge of the City of St. Petersburg's facebook page that the picture taken from the Sunshine Skyway Bridge looking up at the support cables, which is currently set as the main background picture on the city's page, was taken in Hillsborough County, not St. Petersburg? We have enough problems being confused with Tampa, and that doesn't help.
Looking back at the last two years, Mayor Foster chose to hold these informal Breakfast events almost exclusively at locally owned restaurants or institutions, so what changed this year? The answer may lie in what kind of effect having the Mayor over for breakfast has on the host restaurant. We talked to a couple of employees at one of the restaurants that hosted a Breakfast with the Mayor a while back, and were told that "all of our regulars stayed away when they heard that the Mayor was going to be here, we were less than half full until after he left, then things returned to normal". Or maybe it has more to do with Mayor Foster's recent revelation at a Lens Pier visioning meeting that he encourages people to shop at large corporate-owned stores instead of locally owned establishments. Either way, it's another slap in the face of the whole "shop local" movement, just a week after he posed for a picture at the proclamation ceremony for Independents Week.
Just a side note while we are on the subject of the Mayor promoting things from outside of the city, can someone tell the person in charge of the City of St. Petersburg's facebook page that the picture taken from the Sunshine Skyway Bridge looking up at the support cables, which is currently set as the main background picture on the city's page, was taken in Hillsborough County, not St. Petersburg? We have enough problems being confused with Tampa, and that doesn't help.
Monday, June 18, 2012
The Foster, The Baker, The Candlestick-maker...
Sorry, we couldn't resist the reference, especially given what Mayor Bill Foster said at the last Lens Pier meeting on Thursday:
"If you want to buy a candle, if you want to buy a t-shirt, you can go anywhere, you can buy that at Target, at Steinmart, Bealls, you can do that."
This was clearly a shot across the bow at Nicolas Weathersbee, one of the people behind VoteOnThePier.com, who also works at the candle shop on the Pier. Nicolas has been an outspoken proponent for allowing people to vote on the Pier's future since the unannounced vote by city council to tear down the inverted pyramid pier almost two years ago. In response to Foster's statement, Nicolas had this to say:
"So our mayor is suggesting that people DON'T BUY LOCAL. BUY CHINESE. Too bad our company has been resisting Chinese manufacturers for 15 years, our products can only be bought in two stores in all of Florida... And by the way, the candles are ONLY made at The Pier, and John's pass. They are unique to St.Pete, and absolutely CANNOT BE BOUGHT ANYWHERE ELSE, AND DEFINITELY NOT TARGET! The candle company at The Pier is proud that they can say "Made in America". They have been hiring artists for 15 years locally, and have never sold out to the Chinese manufacturers, who have been after them for years."
It is ironic, to say the least, that Foster's insistence that people shop at major corporate retail stores instead of locally-owned businesses comes just a couple weeks before Independents Week, an event geared toward getting people to shop more at local independent shops in St. Petersburg. In fact, the proclamation for Independents Week happened at City Hall only hours before Mayor Foster spoke the above quote. Can you say "awkward..."?
So that's the "Foster" and the "Candlestick-maker" parts of the headline(yes, technically he doesn't make "stick" candles, but "round ball" candles), but what about the "Baker" part? Well, that part just fits nicely into everything we've been posting about recently related to former-Mayor Rick Baker and how he is different(better) than our current-Mayor Bill Foster. Here is what Mr. Weathersbee had to say,
"Baker used to come in the front door of the pier and look you in the eye and ask how things are going... Baker was quoted as saying my candle shop was his favorite shop at the pier. That was nice..."
Just one more in the long list of reasons why we miss Mayor Rick Baker.
"If you want to buy a candle, if you want to buy a t-shirt, you can go anywhere, you can buy that at Target, at Steinmart, Bealls, you can do that."
This was clearly a shot across the bow at Nicolas Weathersbee, one of the people behind VoteOnThePier.com, who also works at the candle shop on the Pier. Nicolas has been an outspoken proponent for allowing people to vote on the Pier's future since the unannounced vote by city council to tear down the inverted pyramid pier almost two years ago. In response to Foster's statement, Nicolas had this to say:
"So our mayor is suggesting that people DON'T BUY LOCAL. BUY CHINESE. Too bad our company has been resisting Chinese manufacturers for 15 years, our products can only be bought in two stores in all of Florida... And by the way, the candles are ONLY made at The Pier, and John's pass. They are unique to St.Pete, and absolutely CANNOT BE BOUGHT ANYWHERE ELSE, AND DEFINITELY NOT TARGET! The candle company at The Pier is proud that they can say "Made in America". They have been hiring artists for 15 years locally, and have never sold out to the Chinese manufacturers, who have been after them for years."
It is ironic, to say the least, that Foster's insistence that people shop at major corporate retail stores instead of locally-owned businesses comes just a couple weeks before Independents Week, an event geared toward getting people to shop more at local independent shops in St. Petersburg. In fact, the proclamation for Independents Week happened at City Hall only hours before Mayor Foster spoke the above quote. Can you say "awkward..."?
So that's the "Foster" and the "Candlestick-maker" parts of the headline(yes, technically he doesn't make "stick" candles, but "round ball" candles), but what about the "Baker" part? Well, that part just fits nicely into everything we've been posting about recently related to former-Mayor Rick Baker and how he is different(better) than our current-Mayor Bill Foster. Here is what Mr. Weathersbee had to say,
"Baker used to come in the front door of the pier and look you in the eye and ask how things are going... Baker was quoted as saying my candle shop was his favorite shop at the pier. That was nice..."
Just one more in the long list of reasons why we miss Mayor Rick Baker.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Mayor Bill Foster Using Evolution Arguments For The Lens Pier
We couldn't make this up if we tried, but the arguments Mayor Foster is using in favor of the scaled-back Lens pier design mirror those of the "Foster's rule" of evolutionary biology which states that,
"members of a species get smaller or bigger depending on the resources available in the environment. This is the core of the study of island biogeography. For example, it is known that pygmy mammoths evolved from normal mammoths on small islands. Similar evolutionary paths have been observed in elephants, hippopotamuses, boas, deer, and humans"
Mayor Foster keeps arguing that the current inverted pyramid doesn't have the resources(subsidy) to stay as big as it is and with all of the buildings and some of the parking over water, so it should change(or evolve) to be much smaller and have no buildings or parking over water so it can fit his planned smaller subsidy from the city, the exact same argument as Foster's rule for evolution. The irony of course is that Bill Foster is very much against the idea of evolution(which we've covered before), saying in a letter to the Pinellas School Board that it lead to Nazism and the Columbine massacre, so why is he pushing so hard in favor of evolution for the Pier? Maybe the VoteOnThePier.com folks need to speak the Mayor's language and say that the inverted pyramid is an "Intelligent Design", that might just win the Mayor over.
"members of a species get smaller or bigger depending on the resources available in the environment. This is the core of the study of island biogeography. For example, it is known that pygmy mammoths evolved from normal mammoths on small islands. Similar evolutionary paths have been observed in elephants, hippopotamuses, boas, deer, and humans"
Mayor Foster keeps arguing that the current inverted pyramid doesn't have the resources(subsidy) to stay as big as it is and with all of the buildings and some of the parking over water, so it should change(or evolve) to be much smaller and have no buildings or parking over water so it can fit his planned smaller subsidy from the city, the exact same argument as Foster's rule for evolution. The irony of course is that Bill Foster is very much against the idea of evolution(which we've covered before), saying in a letter to the Pinellas School Board that it lead to Nazism and the Columbine massacre, so why is he pushing so hard in favor of evolution for the Pier? Maybe the VoteOnThePier.com folks need to speak the Mayor's language and say that the inverted pyramid is an "Intelligent Design", that might just win the Mayor over.
Monday, June 11, 2012
Mayor Foster's Staff Issues Sloppy Response To Pier Renovation Estimate, And VOTP Fires Back
Mayor Bill Foster again used his sometimes-weekly Weekly Forecast email last Friday to lob a fourth round of propaganda at the VoteOnThePier.com group, this time in the form of a critique of the Archer Western proposal to remodel the inverted pyramid building and rebuild the pier approach.
Today, VoteOnThePier.com fired back with a well written response to the city's critique of the estimate, which amounted to them trying to educate the city on the details of which elements from the estimate would be included, why they were included, and why the second largest bridge builder in the country doesn't need to be told it isn't charging enough money for concrete.
The response addresses every point of the city's critique, sometimes with stinging critiques of it's own toward the city, which clearly only put out the quickly-written critique to try to cover it's bases as a way to dismiss the Archer Western pier renovation proposal since the opposition to the Lens design only appears to be growing and not diminishing as the city had hoped.
First Public Input Forum
At the first Public Input Session held last week, the city presented the same inaccurate depictions of the Lens pier with all of the optional features that won't be included, like the towers, reef, docent theater and so on. As the majority of people came forward to speak about how they didn't want the Lens design for one reason or another, Council-chair Leslie Curran stated that the Lens design had been decided upon, and that people would only be allowed to speak about the Lens at the next public input meetings. It looks like according to the Mayor's Friday email, only people with "programming ideas about our new Pier" will be welcome at the rest of these "public input" meetings. So when the majority of the public input isn't to the Mayor's liking, just prevent the opposition from attending. Way to be open to public input there Mr. Mayor.
Also in pier referendum news today, several news organizations pointed out that the Mayor's made-up pier petition deadline means nothing because he can't legally set restrictions on petition drives, since those are governed by the state and county only.
Yet again, the Mayor ends up as the loser of this round. At some point you would hope that he and council will eventually get it, and let the people vote.
Today, VoteOnThePier.com fired back with a well written response to the city's critique of the estimate, which amounted to them trying to educate the city on the details of which elements from the estimate would be included, why they were included, and why the second largest bridge builder in the country doesn't need to be told it isn't charging enough money for concrete.
The response addresses every point of the city's critique, sometimes with stinging critiques of it's own toward the city, which clearly only put out the quickly-written critique to try to cover it's bases as a way to dismiss the Archer Western pier renovation proposal since the opposition to the Lens design only appears to be growing and not diminishing as the city had hoped.
First Public Input Forum
At the first Public Input Session held last week, the city presented the same inaccurate depictions of the Lens pier with all of the optional features that won't be included, like the towers, reef, docent theater and so on. As the majority of people came forward to speak about how they didn't want the Lens design for one reason or another, Council-chair Leslie Curran stated that the Lens design had been decided upon, and that people would only be allowed to speak about the Lens at the next public input meetings. It looks like according to the Mayor's Friday email, only people with "programming ideas about our new Pier" will be welcome at the rest of these "public input" meetings. So when the majority of the public input isn't to the Mayor's liking, just prevent the opposition from attending. Way to be open to public input there Mr. Mayor.
Also in pier referendum news today, several news organizations pointed out that the Mayor's made-up pier petition deadline means nothing because he can't legally set restrictions on petition drives, since those are governed by the state and county only.
Yet again, the Mayor ends up as the loser of this round. At some point you would hope that he and council will eventually get it, and let the people vote.
Mayor Bill Foster's Growing "Big Brother Machine"
Last week, Mayor Foster and his staff convinced City Council to approve spending $270,000 on security cameras to be put in place before the RNC party that is scheduled for the end of August at Tropicana Field.
We've covered Foster's aspirations to become the Big Brother of St. Petersburg, as well as his early failures, but now he is spending over a quarter-million dollars on security cameras for a one-day event, without any guarantee of being reimbursed for the expense. How is it that in the fifth year of budget cuts Council-chair Curran was the only one to vote against this waste of money?
Worse still, we don't know where these cameras will be placed, or how many there will be, all in the name of "security".
And in a slap to the face of city council, after the vote Mayor Foster says the cameras will not be moved to neighborhoods(the opposite of what the City Administrator had said), and if council wants neighborhood crime hot spot cameras it is "up to them to figure out a way to pay for them". With that, Mayor Foster showed just how much of a jerk he can be, especially since the funding source for his new cameras isn't guaranteed.
We've covered Foster's aspirations to become the Big Brother of St. Petersburg, as well as his early failures, but now he is spending over a quarter-million dollars on security cameras for a one-day event, without any guarantee of being reimbursed for the expense. How is it that in the fifth year of budget cuts Council-chair Curran was the only one to vote against this waste of money?
Worse still, we don't know where these cameras will be placed, or how many there will be, all in the name of "security".
And in a slap to the face of city council, after the vote Mayor Foster says the cameras will not be moved to neighborhoods(the opposite of what the City Administrator had said), and if council wants neighborhood crime hot spot cameras it is "up to them to figure out a way to pay for them". With that, Mayor Foster showed just how much of a jerk he can be, especially since the funding source for his new cameras isn't guaranteed.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Draft Rick Baker For Mayor In 2013
"On a cloudy, dreary day in St. Petersburg, former mayor Rick Baker was all sunshine as he took a group around downtown."
Even though he has been out of the Mayor's office for over two years, in a lot of ways he hasn't stopped being our ceremonial Mayor, presiding over dozens of conferences, groundbreakings and store openings. If you go to the Saturday Morning Market, you will still see him there talking with the people about the issues of the day(none of us can remember the last time we saw Mayor Foster there).
Just so you know, we don't have rose-colored glasses on about Baker's time as Mayor, we did disagree with some of the things he did: the back-room deals, his poor record on LGBT issues, and his willingness to bend the rules to get a development project going. Those were all things that we really didn't like about him at the time. But now that we have two years of Mayor Foster to compare Baker's time in office to, we really miss Baker's optimism, his ability to talk to anyone and really listen to them without a sarcastic glance or tone to his voice, as well as how he would tell you where he stands on an issue without having to needle it out of him, and in spite of Baker himself being a lawyer, he never got bogged down in lawsuit-phobia like Mayor Foster does in just about every situation.
So what about Baker for Mayor in 2013? He could do it, the only restriction in the city charter about the Mayor being reelected is two consecutive terms, not total time in office. As for the question of "would he?", he is more of an acquaintance of Bill Foster's, not a friend or ally, and we have covered the differences between them as well as how they tend to back different candidates in Republican elections. The article above even mentions that Baker likes the current Pier better than the Lens pier plan that Foster has been pushing. Baker hasn't ruled out running for Mayor next year, and if he did choose to run, you would see all sorts of Foster supporters jumping ship to get on the Baker boat.
We have been asked many times if Bill Foster Watch is just some kind of political precursor to someone's race for Mayor in 2013, and the answer is a definite NO. Our primary goal with this blog is to expose what Mayor Bill Foster is doing, we have no political affiliation with anyone who would be running for Mayor next year, and just about the only thing we really want is for someone, anyone, to come forward and be a serious challenger to Foster in 2013. Whether that is Rick Baker, or Rick Kriseman, it doesn't matter to us, we think either of those guys would be a big improvement over what we have now.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
EXCLUSIVE! Mayor-Elect Foster Suggested "Pier Referendum"
We would like to thank the people behind voteonthepier.com for giving us the exclusive on this story. Through their research they have contacted a former reporter from the St. Petersburg Times from back in 2009. Cristina Silva covered St Petersburg politics for the Times back then, and when she was told about Mayor Foster's current push to demolish the Pier and not hold a referendum, and how that conflicts with this article that she wrote during the 2009 race for Mayor, she had the following to say:
"I remember Bill(Foster) getting all upset because Scott Wagman said he was going to bulldoze the Pier during that mayoral election", but she added that, "I will note that in my article... I clearly said that Bill thought the Pier would have to go".
The passage she is referring to is one that we have quoted before as well:
"Foster said he will give voters final say on the Pier's future. But his preference is to repair the existing Pier and give it an "extreme makeover" or build a new Pier closer to the shore."
As if this first-person account of Candidate-for-Mayor Foster being upset at the thought of the inverted pyramid being demolished wasn't big enough news, Cristina Silva then pointed to a different news report from another news organization one month after Bill Foster won the election for Mayor of St. Petersburg. In this article, Mayor-elect Bill Foster states that:
"it's likely voters will have the final say on the Pier through a referendum."
That's right, he said it, after he was elected, the "R"-word... REFERENDUM!
Mayor-elect Bill Foster was suggesting a voter referendum on the pier. It is clear now that Mayor Foster can no longer deny that he was once in favor of letting the voters decide on the fate of the Pier. So what happened between December 2009 and less than a year later when he was pushing city council for a vote to demolish the pier without a referendum? We may never know, but we're sure if it comes out it will make a great story.
"I remember Bill(Foster) getting all upset because Scott Wagman said he was going to bulldoze the Pier during that mayoral election", but she added that, "I will note that in my article... I clearly said that Bill thought the Pier would have to go".
The passage she is referring to is one that we have quoted before as well:
"Foster said he will give voters final say on the Pier's future. But his preference is to repair the existing Pier and give it an "extreme makeover" or build a new Pier closer to the shore."
As if this first-person account of Candidate-for-Mayor Foster being upset at the thought of the inverted pyramid being demolished wasn't big enough news, Cristina Silva then pointed to a different news report from another news organization one month after Bill Foster won the election for Mayor of St. Petersburg. In this article, Mayor-elect Bill Foster states that:
"it's likely voters will have the final say on the Pier through a referendum."
That's right, he said it, after he was elected, the "R"-word... REFERENDUM!
Mayor-elect Bill Foster was suggesting a voter referendum on the pier. It is clear now that Mayor Foster can no longer deny that he was once in favor of letting the voters decide on the fate of the Pier. So what happened between December 2009 and less than a year later when he was pushing city council for a vote to demolish the pier without a referendum? We may never know, but we're sure if it comes out it will make a great story.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Mayor Foster's Pier Propaganda, Round 3
Today the City of St. Petersburg awkwardly launched a fancy new website dedicated to the new Lens Pier design, and wouldn't you know it, a few of Foster's misleading "pier facts" and some new revisionist history appears(and then was deleted) on the new website too. We say "awkwardly launched" because they didn't check to see that the new website was working before announcing it, so for the first couple of hours, people that went to the new website only saw these two words "Under Development", and they even managed to send everyone five copies of the City's weekly email newsletter today which also announced the website, just another PR stumble for the Mayor we guess. Also, it looks like they removed the link from the city's website to the original pier competition page, so we've included that link for you here so you can go look at the critique and analysis of how their Lens Phase 1 proposal was over budget and inadequate in several ways. Also, if you haven't already read our other postings on Mayor Foster and the Pier, here is a list of all of those articles so you can catch up if you haven't been following along:
Now on to our analysis of the new Lens Pier website:
The website is really just a series of pages that you follow straight through, starting with "The Current Pier"(We find it funny that the page titled "A History of Pier Traditions" is actually named "save_the_old_pier"). The first two pages go over the history of old St. Petersburg piers and what is wrong with the existing pier structure, everything that has already been covered in our last two articles, and really nothing that anyone is arguing about. But on the third page we see some Foster "facts" that we have problems with:
"Due to its unusual layout, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors of the inverted pyramid are virtually unusable and have limited potential to generate revenue"
We covered this thoroughly in our last pier article, it is ridiculous to consider the first three floors of the Pier by themselves, just like it would be ridiculous to consider the Mahaffey Theater concession stand by itself. Neither operate by themselves, and neither can cover the costs of their subsidy or infrastructure requirements of the whole structure. It makes no sense, and shows how much Foster is grasping at straws to try to make his argument.
"Renovating the Pier does not solve design inefficiencies that cost approximately $1.5 million in tax subsidies per year."
This is what the Mayor really cares about, reducing the subsidy. Eliminating over-water buildings and drastically reducing the square footage over the water will do this, in effect, shrinking the pier and moving all retail to land. This also has the effect of reducing the amount of time that people spend on the pier, reducing the number of people that go to the pier and drastically reducing the economic impact of the pier on downtown over the long term.
"Restaurant space is the only retail use that currently works at The Pier – but it would work more efficiently on the uplands leading to The Pier."
Again, Mayor Foster ignores the other successful retail operations on the pier, and the fact that the Pier is 100% leased, even now when it is less than one year from demolition.
"The logistic complexity of reconstructing a new ground floor below the overhang of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th floors would make renovation and new construction cost prohibitive."
The Mayor provides no numbers for this, and the fact is that the Archer Western renovation proposal does not include rebuilding the current first floor retail building under the overhang at all. In fact, we have not seen anyone seriously propose rebuilding it, so we don't know why he even bothers to bring this up.
The next section of the new website is titled simply "The Lens", with the first page being about "The Hub", an undefined generic "retail village... which can grow over time", they say that because there is not much money for it in the budget, and at only 6000 sq ft, it won't have much room at all compared to the 52,000 sq ft of retail space on the current pier. It is also a long way from the 30,000 to 40,000 sq ft of retail that the pier task force recommended(which this website conveniently does not mention). There are a few more pages with loose descriptions of each section of the Lens pier and what possible additional enhancements could be added if we had the money to add them. Also mentioned is the "spectacular light show" feature which is marked as optional and is not included in the basic budget. If we end up paying for that one we wonder if it would soon meet the same fate as the current Pier's old laser light show.
The last section is "Public Input", which covers the hastily announced public comment meetings that will be happening over the next 2 weeks only(the first one is at the Coliseum on Thursday). Why the city only gave 2 weeks notice for these meetings and did not spread out the public input sessions out over a longer time period is unknown, especially in light of their supposed desire for public input.
The pictures on the website showing the Lens pier by itself are a slight improvement over the previously released pictures because they have removed all of the non-Phase-1 development, but they are still highly misleading because the following optional(or impossible) items that will not be included are still shown and should be removed from the pictures on this website if they do not want to be misleading:
- the Reef
- the Intertidal Path
- the Docent Theater
- the Bike Path
- the Tower structures
- the Wood-like decking on the bridges(will actually be bare concrete)
- the Bridges' steel railings(which will actually be a solid "concrete curb")
- the additional 6000SF of Promatory space
- the Lighting package(showing the Lens Pier glowing at night as well as underwater lighting)
In addition to what is shown that should not be there, there are dozens of boat navigation markers and signs around and within the Lens that will be required and are not shown in the renderings or budgeting because, "Existing pier support piles that are not removed during demolition and remain exposed above the sea bottom present a navigation hazard and will likely require navigation markers or signs" - MOFFATT & NICHOL
Perhaps the most interesting thing about this website is what was removed from it earlier today. There was a section referring to the demolition and replacement of the Pier being planned back in 2004(it wasn't slated for demolition until Mayor Foster pushed for a council vote on demolition in 2010), and there was a section referring to how much the Lens plan conforms to the pier task-force recommendations, these recommendations had been "revised" to make them more Lens-friendly, and most of the real task-force recommendations were left out entirely. Now what you notice as you go through this website is that there are some sections that seem not to flow as well, or some pages without much text content at all, it seems that it was hastily removed earlier today in response to a number of comments on the city's facebook page. We only wish we had taken pictures of these pages before they removed all of this text.
So round 3 of Foster's Lens Pier Propaganda assault is over, and we must say it was a rather poorly planned and stumbling effort by the Mayor's team that left them looking worse than if they had done nothing at all.
- More "Foster's Pier Facts" Are Released
- Fact-Checking Mayor Bill Foster's "Pier Facts"
- A Tale Of Two St Petersburgs, Mayor Bill Foster Style
- Mayor Bill Foster Attacks Pier Initiative Group
- The New "Lens" Pier: Foster's Folly
- Mayor Bill Foster Backpedals on Pier Closing Date
Now on to our analysis of the new Lens Pier website:
The website is really just a series of pages that you follow straight through, starting with "The Current Pier"(We find it funny that the page titled "A History of Pier Traditions" is actually named "save_the_old_pier"). The first two pages go over the history of old St. Petersburg piers and what is wrong with the existing pier structure, everything that has already been covered in our last two articles, and really nothing that anyone is arguing about. But on the third page we see some Foster "facts" that we have problems with:
"Due to its unusual layout, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors of the inverted pyramid are virtually unusable and have limited potential to generate revenue"
We covered this thoroughly in our last pier article, it is ridiculous to consider the first three floors of the Pier by themselves, just like it would be ridiculous to consider the Mahaffey Theater concession stand by itself. Neither operate by themselves, and neither can cover the costs of their subsidy or infrastructure requirements of the whole structure. It makes no sense, and shows how much Foster is grasping at straws to try to make his argument.
"Renovating the Pier does not solve design inefficiencies that cost approximately $1.5 million in tax subsidies per year."
This is what the Mayor really cares about, reducing the subsidy. Eliminating over-water buildings and drastically reducing the square footage over the water will do this, in effect, shrinking the pier and moving all retail to land. This also has the effect of reducing the amount of time that people spend on the pier, reducing the number of people that go to the pier and drastically reducing the economic impact of the pier on downtown over the long term.
"Restaurant space is the only retail use that currently works at The Pier – but it would work more efficiently on the uplands leading to The Pier."
Again, Mayor Foster ignores the other successful retail operations on the pier, and the fact that the Pier is 100% leased, even now when it is less than one year from demolition.
"The logistic complexity of reconstructing a new ground floor below the overhang of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th floors would make renovation and new construction cost prohibitive."
The Mayor provides no numbers for this, and the fact is that the Archer Western renovation proposal does not include rebuilding the current first floor retail building under the overhang at all. In fact, we have not seen anyone seriously propose rebuilding it, so we don't know why he even bothers to bring this up.
The next section of the new website is titled simply "The Lens", with the first page being about "The Hub", an undefined generic "retail village... which can grow over time", they say that because there is not much money for it in the budget, and at only 6000 sq ft, it won't have much room at all compared to the 52,000 sq ft of retail space on the current pier. It is also a long way from the 30,000 to 40,000 sq ft of retail that the pier task force recommended(which this website conveniently does not mention). There are a few more pages with loose descriptions of each section of the Lens pier and what possible additional enhancements could be added if we had the money to add them. Also mentioned is the "spectacular light show" feature which is marked as optional and is not included in the basic budget. If we end up paying for that one we wonder if it would soon meet the same fate as the current Pier's old laser light show.
The last section is "Public Input", which covers the hastily announced public comment meetings that will be happening over the next 2 weeks only(the first one is at the Coliseum on Thursday). Why the city only gave 2 weeks notice for these meetings and did not spread out the public input sessions out over a longer time period is unknown, especially in light of their supposed desire for public input.
The pictures on the website showing the Lens pier by itself are a slight improvement over the previously released pictures because they have removed all of the non-Phase-1 development, but they are still highly misleading because the following optional(or impossible) items that will not be included are still shown and should be removed from the pictures on this website if they do not want to be misleading:
- the Reef
- the Intertidal Path
- the Docent Theater
- the Bike Path
- the Tower structures
- the Wood-like decking on the bridges(will actually be bare concrete)
- the Bridges' steel railings(which will actually be a solid "concrete curb")
- the additional 6000SF of Promatory space
- the Lighting package(showing the Lens Pier glowing at night as well as underwater lighting)
In addition to what is shown that should not be there, there are dozens of boat navigation markers and signs around and within the Lens that will be required and are not shown in the renderings or budgeting because, "Existing pier support piles that are not removed during demolition and remain exposed above the sea bottom present a navigation hazard and will likely require navigation markers or signs" - MOFFATT & NICHOL
Perhaps the most interesting thing about this website is what was removed from it earlier today. There was a section referring to the demolition and replacement of the Pier being planned back in 2004(it wasn't slated for demolition until Mayor Foster pushed for a council vote on demolition in 2010), and there was a section referring to how much the Lens plan conforms to the pier task-force recommendations, these recommendations had been "revised" to make them more Lens-friendly, and most of the real task-force recommendations were left out entirely. Now what you notice as you go through this website is that there are some sections that seem not to flow as well, or some pages without much text content at all, it seems that it was hastily removed earlier today in response to a number of comments on the city's facebook page. We only wish we had taken pictures of these pages before they removed all of this text.
So round 3 of Foster's Lens Pier Propaganda assault is over, and we must say it was a rather poorly planned and stumbling effort by the Mayor's team that left them looking worse than if they had done nothing at all.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Mayor Bill Foster Begs For Audit
A frustrated Mayor Foster at the last city council meeting said that he was tired of the talk about the need for an audit of the development impact fees over the last several years, begging the council members to "Audit Something, please!"(click to read the full Patch article).
Now, we've covered this issue a few times before, and for some reason Mayor Foster just can't understand why the council would question his trust in his city employees. Well, we don't know, maybe it is because he has refused to fire or even discipline a city employee that lied to city council on purpose, or maybe it is because of the mis-appraisal of properties the city was buying(again with no disciplinary action), or it might just be that the council was mislead as to how thorough the previous unofficial investigation into the impact fees was. No matter what it was, the majority of council members we able to see past Foster's blind faith in his staff and voted to proceed with the external audits.
We again want to thank all of the council members that voted for this audit, especially Steve Kornell, who spearheaded this request for an audit, did his homework and showed that he cares about the people of this city, and what we think about out city government.
We also have to mention our favorite quote from this council meeting, it is in reference to the Lens pier plan, and the concept of attracting manatees to the artificial reef(which we have covered before as not being able to function as designed), Councilman Karl Nurse said "you know, we try NOT to kill manatees." We couldn't agree more councilman, and we are working on yet another Pier/Foster posting since the Mayor seems to be putting his foot in his mouth again.
Now, we've covered this issue a few times before, and for some reason Mayor Foster just can't understand why the council would question his trust in his city employees. Well, we don't know, maybe it is because he has refused to fire or even discipline a city employee that lied to city council on purpose, or maybe it is because of the mis-appraisal of properties the city was buying(again with no disciplinary action), or it might just be that the council was mislead as to how thorough the previous unofficial investigation into the impact fees was. No matter what it was, the majority of council members we able to see past Foster's blind faith in his staff and voted to proceed with the external audits.
We again want to thank all of the council members that voted for this audit, especially Steve Kornell, who spearheaded this request for an audit, did his homework and showed that he cares about the people of this city, and what we think about out city government.
We also have to mention our favorite quote from this council meeting, it is in reference to the Lens pier plan, and the concept of attracting manatees to the artificial reef(which we have covered before as not being able to function as designed), Councilman Karl Nurse said "you know, we try NOT to kill manatees." We couldn't agree more councilman, and we are working on yet another Pier/Foster posting since the Mayor seems to be putting his foot in his mouth again.
Friday, May 25, 2012
More "Foster's Pier Facts" Are Released
Mayor Bill Foster released some more "Pier Facts" today in his sometimes-weekly weekly forecast email, so we thought we would go through these and see if he was any more truthful on these new facts than he was on the "facts" he released last week in his shiny "facts" brochure. If you haven't read our post from Monday, please take a few minutes to read it, there is a lot of good background information in there. Now on to the new Foster pier "facts":
"The Pier Approach... and the Pier Head were built in 1926. According to engineering assessments, these portions of the Pier are continuing to diminish in their ability to bear weight, and will have to be closed within two years."
We haven't seen anyone anywhere debate you on this Mayor Foster, everyone agrees that the pier approach and head need to be replaced.
"Even if the city were to replace The Pier approach and Pier Head, we would be left with a 40-year-old building which drains city dollars through $1.5 million in annual subsidies and would require expensive renovations."
The Pier was built to be dependent on a subsidy, it is an "attraction", it is meant to attract people to it to spend time and money while out there looking at our beautiful city from an unparalleled vantage point. Nobody will spend time out on the Lens pier, there is nowhere to gather, sit or eat, and there is very little shade. There is nothing to do out there except stand and look around, so no time or money will be spent out there.
The Mayor also mentions the age of the pier building as a problem, maybe that means his next targets are the even-more-geriatric Coliseum and Sunken Gardens buildings, after all, they are both a lot older than 40.
"Floors 1, 2 and 3, due to their awkward size and layout, cannot command sufficient revenue to be self sustaining."
This is about as bad as saying that the entryway of Sunken Gardens(which the city has to subsidize by the way) does not generate enough money by itself through vending machines, so we should demolish the entire Sunken Gardens complex(because it is not self-sustaining) and fill it in to be a parking lot for Carrabba's Restaurant. Or maybe since the concession stand at the Mahaffey Theater(another city-subsidized structure) doesn't make enough money for the Mahaffey Theater to be self-sustaining we should just tear down the whole building to make a bigger parking lot for the Dali Museum. What about those Tea Dances at the Coliseum(another subsidized building), not enough old folks dancing like there use to be to pay for it, so we should just tear the Coliseum down too, maybe make room for a toll plaza complex to get money out of all of those freeloading drivers coming off of I-375 using our non-self-sustaining roads here in St. Petersburg.
Does Mayor Foster understand how ridiculous he sounds? Of course the first through third floors of the pier are not self-sustaining, but they shouldn't have to be, they were not built by themselves and they should not be singled out by themselves as a reason to demolish the entire pier. Is the gelato stand at the end of the Lens pier going to be profitable enough to sustain the 24-hour security and bird-dropping cleaning services that the Lens pier will require? Not a chance.
"And while we all enjoy dinner at the Columbia or Cha Cha Coconut's on floors 4 and 5, operating a restaurant 1/4 of a mile out into the water is not efficient. The Pier's new design calls for 6,000 sq. ft. of retail at the land's edge on The Hub, which is a more suitable place for a dining establishment."
So insead of over 52,000 sq. ft. of retail space currently in the pier, most with great views of the city or the bay, we will end up with only 6,000 sq. ft. for a single restaurant on land(or a couple small shops and a small restaurant) with a view not of the water, but of the sidewalk-to-nowhere, and we don't even know what it will look like from that vantage point because the architects won't release pictures of how the Lens pier will look from land. The pier task-force recommended "30,000 and 40,000 square feet of restaurant, bar, and banquet space." and less than one fifth of that is nowhere close to their recommendations.
"The Pier's electrical, fire, heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and other systems do not meet current city codes. The exterior doors and windows do not meet current wind codes. Elevators and bathrooms do not meet federal ADA regulations."
OK Mayor Foster, but how much would it cost to make these repairs? You say it's expensive, but you never say how expensive it is. Give us some "facts" on the costs please.
"All HVAC systems require replacement."
It seems that the Mayor needs to read the 2010 PSI report, here is a quote from that report on the condition of the pier "The building has one (1) operational chiller system that was manufactured by Carrier. The unit was installed in 2005 and is in good condition." So it really isn't ALL HVAC systems that require replacement is it Mr. Mayor.
"After 40 years, all pipes need to be replaced, the observation deck needs to be re-roofed, and the building needs painting and waterproofing."
Again, please give us some costs on these items that need to be replaced, from third party independent companies, no more "internal estimates" please.
That is about it for the new "Foster Facts" on the pier. In his email, he goes on to talk about what TIF means and why we can't build a police station with pier money(even though we could if we moved it into the TIF area, but the Mayor doesn't mention that option for some reason).
Now we just want to mention one more fact that Mayor Foster hasn't put out there so far, there are currently between 300 to 500 people(depending on who's numbers you believe) that work out on the pier, those are permanent jobs that will not be there after the Lens is built. The gelato stand and 6,000 sq. ft. of retail on land will only employ 50 people at most, so there will be a minimum net loss of at least 250 jobs in total after the Lens is finished. With the city spending money and giving tax breaks to bring new companies to St Petersburg we thought this would be a great time to mention one of Bill Foster's great quotes: "Jobs is the biggest indicator of economic vitality and growth of a city. If you're not creating jobs, and growing, you're dying". Maybe we should start by not letting go of hundreds of jobs we already have here, right at the pier.
We look forward to debunking the next batch of "Foster Facts on the Pier", he seems to be on a roll now.
"The Pier Approach... and the Pier Head were built in 1926. According to engineering assessments, these portions of the Pier are continuing to diminish in their ability to bear weight, and will have to be closed within two years."
We haven't seen anyone anywhere debate you on this Mayor Foster, everyone agrees that the pier approach and head need to be replaced.
"Even if the city were to replace The Pier approach and Pier Head, we would be left with a 40-year-old building which drains city dollars through $1.5 million in annual subsidies and would require expensive renovations."
The Pier was built to be dependent on a subsidy, it is an "attraction", it is meant to attract people to it to spend time and money while out there looking at our beautiful city from an unparalleled vantage point. Nobody will spend time out on the Lens pier, there is nowhere to gather, sit or eat, and there is very little shade. There is nothing to do out there except stand and look around, so no time or money will be spent out there.
The Mayor also mentions the age of the pier building as a problem, maybe that means his next targets are the even-more-geriatric Coliseum and Sunken Gardens buildings, after all, they are both a lot older than 40.
"Floors 1, 2 and 3, due to their awkward size and layout, cannot command sufficient revenue to be self sustaining."
This is about as bad as saying that the entryway of Sunken Gardens(which the city has to subsidize by the way) does not generate enough money by itself through vending machines, so we should demolish the entire Sunken Gardens complex(because it is not self-sustaining) and fill it in to be a parking lot for Carrabba's Restaurant. Or maybe since the concession stand at the Mahaffey Theater(another city-subsidized structure) doesn't make enough money for the Mahaffey Theater to be self-sustaining we should just tear down the whole building to make a bigger parking lot for the Dali Museum. What about those Tea Dances at the Coliseum(another subsidized building), not enough old folks dancing like there use to be to pay for it, so we should just tear the Coliseum down too, maybe make room for a toll plaza complex to get money out of all of those freeloading drivers coming off of I-375 using our non-self-sustaining roads here in St. Petersburg.
Does Mayor Foster understand how ridiculous he sounds? Of course the first through third floors of the pier are not self-sustaining, but they shouldn't have to be, they were not built by themselves and they should not be singled out by themselves as a reason to demolish the entire pier. Is the gelato stand at the end of the Lens pier going to be profitable enough to sustain the 24-hour security and bird-dropping cleaning services that the Lens pier will require? Not a chance.
"And while we all enjoy dinner at the Columbia or Cha Cha Coconut's on floors 4 and 5, operating a restaurant 1/4 of a mile out into the water is not efficient. The Pier's new design calls for 6,000 sq. ft. of retail at the land's edge on The Hub, which is a more suitable place for a dining establishment."
So insead of over 52,000 sq. ft. of retail space currently in the pier, most with great views of the city or the bay, we will end up with only 6,000 sq. ft. for a single restaurant on land(or a couple small shops and a small restaurant) with a view not of the water, but of the sidewalk-to-nowhere, and we don't even know what it will look like from that vantage point because the architects won't release pictures of how the Lens pier will look from land. The pier task-force recommended "30,000 and 40,000 square feet of restaurant, bar, and banquet space." and less than one fifth of that is nowhere close to their recommendations.
"The Pier's electrical, fire, heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and other systems do not meet current city codes. The exterior doors and windows do not meet current wind codes. Elevators and bathrooms do not meet federal ADA regulations."
OK Mayor Foster, but how much would it cost to make these repairs? You say it's expensive, but you never say how expensive it is. Give us some "facts" on the costs please.
"All HVAC systems require replacement."
It seems that the Mayor needs to read the 2010 PSI report, here is a quote from that report on the condition of the pier "The building has one (1) operational chiller system that was manufactured by Carrier. The unit was installed in 2005 and is in good condition." So it really isn't ALL HVAC systems that require replacement is it Mr. Mayor.
"After 40 years, all pipes need to be replaced, the observation deck needs to be re-roofed, and the building needs painting and waterproofing."
Again, please give us some costs on these items that need to be replaced, from third party independent companies, no more "internal estimates" please.
That is about it for the new "Foster Facts" on the pier. In his email, he goes on to talk about what TIF means and why we can't build a police station with pier money(even though we could if we moved it into the TIF area, but the Mayor doesn't mention that option for some reason).
Now we just want to mention one more fact that Mayor Foster hasn't put out there so far, there are currently between 300 to 500 people(depending on who's numbers you believe) that work out on the pier, those are permanent jobs that will not be there after the Lens is built. The gelato stand and 6,000 sq. ft. of retail on land will only employ 50 people at most, so there will be a minimum net loss of at least 250 jobs in total after the Lens is finished. With the city spending money and giving tax breaks to bring new companies to St Petersburg we thought this would be a great time to mention one of Bill Foster's great quotes: "Jobs is the biggest indicator of economic vitality and growth of a city. If you're not creating jobs, and growing, you're dying". Maybe we should start by not letting go of hundreds of jobs we already have here, right at the pier.
We look forward to debunking the next batch of "Foster Facts on the Pier", he seems to be on a roll now.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Fact-Checking Mayor Bill Foster's "Pier Facts"
Last Thursday, the St. Petersburg City Council voted to move forward with the Michael Maltzan Architecture "Lens" design plan to replace the current inverted pyramid pier. Most of the people speaking, before the item came up on the agenda, were against signing the contract. When the City Council members had their chance to speak, several had questions about the Lens plans and the process. Councilmen Kornell and Nurse seemed the most on the fence about the Lens contract, aside from Newton of course, who continued his one-councilman crusade to save the inverted pyramid pier. Several council members acknowledged the lack of resident enthusiasm for the Lens design, and the poor communication with the residents on the project. In the end, all but Newton voted to sign the contract.
So what does this have to do with Mayor Bill Foster? After all, he doesn't vote on council business, since this was council's job, but he certainly was pushing for the demolition of the inverted pyramid pier, and has been pushing for it for almost 2 years. While the council members were discussing whether to sign the Lens contract, Foster flashed his newly released brochure on "the facts" about the old pier. He condescendingly used the word "facts" at least a dozen times in an attempt to discredit everyone that was in favor of the preservation of the inverted pyramid structure, saying they didn't know what they were talking about, so he had the "facts" to educate everyone on why the current pier is doomed and should be torn down to make way for our glorious new 90-foot-tallbedpan, toilet-bowl, sidewalk-to-nowhere, tiara, lens walkway/pier.
As for us, other than being residents and voters in St. Petersburg, we don't really have a horse in this race. We are not in love with the inverted pyramid pier, although it is a nice place to take visitors or go for lunch or dinner with a great view. We don't particularly like the Lens design either(see list of unflattering crossed-out nicknames above). But when we see Mayor Foster start barking about "the facts" about the pier, we just know he had to have messed them up somehow. So being only casual observers of the pier project up to this point(other than the piece we wrote about "what we were promised and what we are getting with the new lens pier" a few months ago) we decided to immerse ourselves these last few days into all of the documents posted over the last few years by the pier task-force. In all, there are thousands of pages of documents, including meeting minutes, old newspaper clippings, new RFQs and several studies.
Before we get to the fact-checking of Foster's "facts", we wanted to share some of the details we learned after filling our brains with pier task-force information, and other related data on the pier:
- The $50 million that has been earmarked was intended to address the Pier approach and the Pier head, but the not the Pier building itself
(City Council instructed the pier task force in 2008 to consider all options, including demolishing the pier)
- "The Pier" would not be The Pier without a pier
(a bit obvious we thought, but it is mentioned in several of the documents)
- Original demolition cost estimates: $11 million(approach and collar) + $2.4 million(building and foundation)
(Maltzan Lens plans, old pier demolition costs: $4.5 million, no explanation as to why it's one third of the original quote)
- "a drop-off/front door style experience for optimizing accessibility by way of cars trolleys and/or other public transportation is important"
(They seem to have ignored this important recommendation in the case of the Lens design)
- "It is recommended that any reconfiguration of the existing Pier structure or new structure's on the Pier or upland be planned to accommodate between 30,000 and 40,000 square feet of restaurant, bar, and banquet space."
(The lens will only have 6,000 square feet of restaurant space on the upland "Hub" and only a few hundred square feet on the pier itself for a gelato stand)
- Performance venue like an amphitheater would only be used 12-24 days out of the year
(Amphitheater included in the Lens plan for Phase II, seems like it would not be used much, not much bang-for-the-buck)
- Any new pier "will continue to require some level of subsidy support from the city"
(to date, no estimate of the subsidy for the Lens Pier has been announced. But...)
- Closing the existing pier would still cost $650,000/year
(having the pier sit closed and unoccupied would still cost the city hundreds of thousands yearly, so a new pier can't be any cheaper than that to subsidize)
- Lambert Advisory: Our Goals... Mitigate future requirement for operating and capital subsidy
(we believe this was their number one goal overall, looking at all of the documents and minutes together)
- Council Member Leslie Curran raised concern that the proposed design alternatives need to be reflect what the citizens and taxpayers want.
(interesting that at one point she was actually interested in what the citizens and taxpayers had to say about the pier)
- "there is little or no negative revenue consequence we believe in bringing development closer into the upland or placing the development on the upland."
(This appears to be one of their big cost-saving measures, less building over water = less money)
- It would be the goal to lessen the negative financial impact by ‘dumbing down’ the pier – reduce the size to where there is no economic impact.
(Again, another long-term cost savings measure is to shrink the pier so it costs less to maintain. It should be obvious though that this would also reduce the positive economic impact)
- The minutes from the last Design Subcommittee and the last two General Meetings are strangely missing
(no explanation for this, we would think those would be the most important ones to put up, since they would contain discussions about their conclusions)
- 6th floor could be used for retail/restaurant development.
(imagine the view from the 6th floor of the pier)
- 25% of the third floor is used for management offices.
(the contract with the management company requires that they have office space, but why does it have to be prime real-estate with a view?)
- The current pier has an economic impact of $74 million per year.
(mentioned several times in archival videos by Councilman Wengay Newton. With reduced size and retail capabilities, the new Lens pier will not have the same long-term year-by-year economic impact on the city)
- Yearly subsidy is $1.5 million per year
(that is the average, it goes up and down)
- Just in the last couple of months, the city has paid for brand new roofs on the pier outbuildings and a new ramp to the docks
(why would you build new things for a pier that is to be demolished in one year's time?)
- The new pier project design phase only allowed 6 weeks, when similar projects usually get one year of planning time
(no explanation was given for this, why the rush?)
- Councilman Newton said about the pier design process, "input" is different than "approval". There was no public hearing about condemning and demolishing the inverted pyramid pier.
(This is the part that bothers us the most)
- August 18, 2010 Pier Workshop: Mayor Foster would like to get a consensus of the Council on removal of the inverted pyramid. Council Member Dudley feels that they need to do something to enhance the current structure; and asked if anyone had done a survey as to whether or not to keep the Pier. The straw poll on Demolition of the entire Pier including the approach. Ayes. Curran, Danner, Polson, Kornell. & Nurse. No. Kennedy, Newton & Dudley. Motion passed.
(This meeting, with no public comment allowed, is where the current pier was condemned to destruction by a straw vote at the urging of Mayor Foster. It was non-binding, but it set the stage for the "official" vote which came later)
- Unsolicited bid from Archer Western(AW) and Architectural Design, Inc.(ADI) shows demolition of the pier approach, collar and gutting of the inverted pyramid to it's frame, encasing the pier head in a seawall and rebuilding a more narrow approach would cost $50 million.
(no response from the city on the details of this plan, it has effectively been ignored, even though it is on budget)
- "It is estimated that the MMA(Lens) concept is currently over budget by a range of 15% to 24%... Our current estimated overage for Maltzan and the “Lens” is approximately $10.9 million."
(Maltzan's response was to say they would shrink the lens pier concept and move it 100 feet closer to land to save money)
We know, that was a lot to wade through, but it is important to know how we got to where we are now, and the above facts do a pretty good job of summing it up. After taking in all of this information, it's pretty easy to see how we ended up as the Lens plan being the replacement for the inverted pyramid pier. The most important goal for the task-force was the reduction of the subsidy, which would necessitate the smallest footprint over the water, with almost all amenities on land, and the Lens is the only option that fit that bill, the others didn't stand a chance. That is also why renovating the existing pier was never really considered as a viable option.
Now on to Foster's "Get the Facts!" Pier Brochure:
click here to see the brochure
Pier Bridge and Head:
- Structural maintenance program no longer cost effective
- Structural elements continue to deteriorate
- Has exceeded useful service life
- Load carrying capacity continues to diminish
(no arguments here, in fact nobody we've heard has debated that the 90 year-old approach is going to last that much longer, this is what the $50 million was originally intended to be used for, this replacement is also addressed in the ADI proposal)
Inverted Pyramid Market Study & Logistical Facts:
- Inefficient floor plans
(imagine that, an upside-down pyramid has inefficient space planning, but it's a heck of a lot better than the floor planning on the Lens pier, just look at those elevations, it's even worse of a mess)
- 1st, 2nd, and 3rd floors unusable with limited potential to generate revenue
(they seem to be plenty usable to us, first and second floors are occupied, third is 25% full with management, and no efforts to lease it after Great Explorations moved out. We can't find anywhere in the pier task-force documentation that agrees with this "Foster Fact")
- Lacks of substantial entertainment program to activate the Pier
(well, that's what happens when you take away their marketing and event budget, the same thing as when you see a drop in attendance at city pools when you reduce their hours. In the past, there were major concerts with tens of thousands of people on the pier, but since there is no money for those events, they can't happen now. What do you expect Mr. Mayor?)
- Restaurant space is the only retail oriented use, which might perform reasonably well on upland Pier
(It seems the Mayor is ignoring the retail-sales, boat-tours-and-day-trips, bike rentals and fishing that happens now at the pier. He is most likely referring to the task-force's conclusion that non-restaurant retail doesn't make enough money to reduce the subsidy, which is all the Mayor cares about)
- None of the existing ground floor retail will be added back to a renovated pier
(sounds like Mayor Foster already has plans for a renovated pier if he knows this, we sure would like to see his plans)
- Back-of-house spaces serving 4th floor tenant require demolition
(no mention of this in the CIP report or the PSI report, we can find no document that makes reference to this)
- Logistical complexity of reconstructing a new pier head, below overhang of the inverted pyramid, will increase cost of both the demolition and new construction
(this was one reason the ADI quote builds a seawall around the pier building. Yes, the demolition of less than half of the pier-head only would cost 40% more for that small section only, but all you need to do to cancel that out is find the demolition company that the Maltzan Lens group plan to use, and the total demolition cost will be one third of the Moffatt Nichol demolition quote, so you still save money, if the Maltzan demolition figure is real that is)
- Renovating the inverted pyramid does not solve the design inefficiencies requiring significant annual taxpayer subsidies
(as long as you have a pier, you will have a subsidy. The less impressive of a pier, the lower the subsidy. You get what you pay for Mr. Mayor. Is cutting the yearly subsidy in half for the Lens really worth losing more than ten times the retail space, the great restaurant views and the great economic impact that you have in the inverted pyramid?)
- All existing ground floor, retail and support spaces must be demolished
(this "fact" is a bit redundant, since he already mentions they won't be added back)
- Images show current state of concrete and re-bar deterioration underside of Pier
(this is for the approach and the collar again, not the five caisson supports for the pyramid building and elevator. Again, these are 90 years old and need to be replaced, nobody is debating you on that Mayor Foster)
Building Deficiencies:
(this is just a list of all of the things that do not meet codes on the existing pier buildings(windows, doors, alarm, plumbing, etc...). The inverted pyramid building needs to be gutted and refinished, and the ADI quote accounts for that within it's budget)
So there you have it, several of Foster's "facts" seem to have no factual support that we could find, big surprise, we know.
So what does this have to do with Mayor Bill Foster? After all, he doesn't vote on council business, since this was council's job, but he certainly was pushing for the demolition of the inverted pyramid pier, and has been pushing for it for almost 2 years. While the council members were discussing whether to sign the Lens contract, Foster flashed his newly released brochure on "the facts" about the old pier. He condescendingly used the word "facts" at least a dozen times in an attempt to discredit everyone that was in favor of the preservation of the inverted pyramid structure, saying they didn't know what they were talking about, so he had the "facts" to educate everyone on why the current pier is doomed and should be torn down to make way for our glorious new 90-foot-tall
As for us, other than being residents and voters in St. Petersburg, we don't really have a horse in this race. We are not in love with the inverted pyramid pier, although it is a nice place to take visitors or go for lunch or dinner with a great view. We don't particularly like the Lens design either(see list of unflattering crossed-out nicknames above). But when we see Mayor Foster start barking about "the facts" about the pier, we just know he had to have messed them up somehow. So being only casual observers of the pier project up to this point(other than the piece we wrote about "what we were promised and what we are getting with the new lens pier" a few months ago) we decided to immerse ourselves these last few days into all of the documents posted over the last few years by the pier task-force. In all, there are thousands of pages of documents, including meeting minutes, old newspaper clippings, new RFQs and several studies.
Before we get to the fact-checking of Foster's "facts", we wanted to share some of the details we learned after filling our brains with pier task-force information, and other related data on the pier:
- The $50 million that has been earmarked was intended to address the Pier approach and the Pier head, but the not the Pier building itself
(City Council instructed the pier task force in 2008 to consider all options, including demolishing the pier)
- "The Pier" would not be The Pier without a pier
(a bit obvious we thought, but it is mentioned in several of the documents)
- Original demolition cost estimates: $11 million(approach and collar) + $2.4 million(building and foundation)
(Maltzan Lens plans, old pier demolition costs: $4.5 million, no explanation as to why it's one third of the original quote)
- "a drop-off/front door style experience for optimizing accessibility by way of cars trolleys and/or other public transportation is important"
(They seem to have ignored this important recommendation in the case of the Lens design)
- "It is recommended that any reconfiguration of the existing Pier structure or new structure's on the Pier or upland be planned to accommodate between 30,000 and 40,000 square feet of restaurant, bar, and banquet space."
(The lens will only have 6,000 square feet of restaurant space on the upland "Hub" and only a few hundred square feet on the pier itself for a gelato stand)
- Performance venue like an amphitheater would only be used 12-24 days out of the year
(Amphitheater included in the Lens plan for Phase II, seems like it would not be used much, not much bang-for-the-buck)
- Any new pier "will continue to require some level of subsidy support from the city"
(to date, no estimate of the subsidy for the Lens Pier has been announced. But...)
- Closing the existing pier would still cost $650,000/year
(having the pier sit closed and unoccupied would still cost the city hundreds of thousands yearly, so a new pier can't be any cheaper than that to subsidize)
- Lambert Advisory: Our Goals... Mitigate future requirement for operating and capital subsidy
(we believe this was their number one goal overall, looking at all of the documents and minutes together)
- Council Member Leslie Curran raised concern that the proposed design alternatives need to be reflect what the citizens and taxpayers want.
(interesting that at one point she was actually interested in what the citizens and taxpayers had to say about the pier)
- "there is little or no negative revenue consequence we believe in bringing development closer into the upland or placing the development on the upland."
(This appears to be one of their big cost-saving measures, less building over water = less money)
- It would be the goal to lessen the negative financial impact by ‘dumbing down’ the pier – reduce the size to where there is no economic impact.
(Again, another long-term cost savings measure is to shrink the pier so it costs less to maintain. It should be obvious though that this would also reduce the positive economic impact)
- The minutes from the last Design Subcommittee and the last two General Meetings are strangely missing
(no explanation for this, we would think those would be the most important ones to put up, since they would contain discussions about their conclusions)
- 6th floor could be used for retail/restaurant development.
(imagine the view from the 6th floor of the pier)
- 25% of the third floor is used for management offices.
(the contract with the management company requires that they have office space, but why does it have to be prime real-estate with a view?)
- The current pier has an economic impact of $74 million per year.
(mentioned several times in archival videos by Councilman Wengay Newton. With reduced size and retail capabilities, the new Lens pier will not have the same long-term year-by-year economic impact on the city)
- Yearly subsidy is $1.5 million per year
(that is the average, it goes up and down)
- Just in the last couple of months, the city has paid for brand new roofs on the pier outbuildings and a new ramp to the docks
(why would you build new things for a pier that is to be demolished in one year's time?)
- The new pier project design phase only allowed 6 weeks, when similar projects usually get one year of planning time
(no explanation was given for this, why the rush?)
- Councilman Newton said about the pier design process, "input" is different than "approval". There was no public hearing about condemning and demolishing the inverted pyramid pier.
(This is the part that bothers us the most)
- August 18, 2010 Pier Workshop: Mayor Foster would like to get a consensus of the Council on removal of the inverted pyramid. Council Member Dudley feels that they need to do something to enhance the current structure; and asked if anyone had done a survey as to whether or not to keep the Pier. The straw poll on Demolition of the entire Pier including the approach. Ayes. Curran, Danner, Polson, Kornell. & Nurse. No. Kennedy, Newton & Dudley. Motion passed.
(This meeting, with no public comment allowed, is where the current pier was condemned to destruction by a straw vote at the urging of Mayor Foster. It was non-binding, but it set the stage for the "official" vote which came later)
- Unsolicited bid from Archer Western(AW) and Architectural Design, Inc.(ADI) shows demolition of the pier approach, collar and gutting of the inverted pyramid to it's frame, encasing the pier head in a seawall and rebuilding a more narrow approach would cost $50 million.
(no response from the city on the details of this plan, it has effectively been ignored, even though it is on budget)
- "It is estimated that the MMA(Lens) concept is currently over budget by a range of 15% to 24%... Our current estimated overage for Maltzan and the “Lens” is approximately $10.9 million."
(Maltzan's response was to say they would shrink the lens pier concept and move it 100 feet closer to land to save money)
We know, that was a lot to wade through, but it is important to know how we got to where we are now, and the above facts do a pretty good job of summing it up. After taking in all of this information, it's pretty easy to see how we ended up as the Lens plan being the replacement for the inverted pyramid pier. The most important goal for the task-force was the reduction of the subsidy, which would necessitate the smallest footprint over the water, with almost all amenities on land, and the Lens is the only option that fit that bill, the others didn't stand a chance. That is also why renovating the existing pier was never really considered as a viable option.
Now on to Foster's "Get the Facts!" Pier Brochure:
click here to see the brochure
Pier Bridge and Head:
- Structural maintenance program no longer cost effective
- Structural elements continue to deteriorate
- Has exceeded useful service life
- Load carrying capacity continues to diminish
(no arguments here, in fact nobody we've heard has debated that the 90 year-old approach is going to last that much longer, this is what the $50 million was originally intended to be used for, this replacement is also addressed in the ADI proposal)
Inverted Pyramid Market Study & Logistical Facts:
- Inefficient floor plans
(imagine that, an upside-down pyramid has inefficient space planning, but it's a heck of a lot better than the floor planning on the Lens pier, just look at those elevations, it's even worse of a mess)
- 1st, 2nd, and 3rd floors unusable with limited potential to generate revenue
(they seem to be plenty usable to us, first and second floors are occupied, third is 25% full with management, and no efforts to lease it after Great Explorations moved out. We can't find anywhere in the pier task-force documentation that agrees with this "Foster Fact")
- Lacks of substantial entertainment program to activate the Pier
(well, that's what happens when you take away their marketing and event budget, the same thing as when you see a drop in attendance at city pools when you reduce their hours. In the past, there were major concerts with tens of thousands of people on the pier, but since there is no money for those events, they can't happen now. What do you expect Mr. Mayor?)
- Restaurant space is the only retail oriented use, which might perform reasonably well on upland Pier
(It seems the Mayor is ignoring the retail-sales, boat-tours-and-day-trips, bike rentals and fishing that happens now at the pier. He is most likely referring to the task-force's conclusion that non-restaurant retail doesn't make enough money to reduce the subsidy, which is all the Mayor cares about)
- None of the existing ground floor retail will be added back to a renovated pier
(sounds like Mayor Foster already has plans for a renovated pier if he knows this, we sure would like to see his plans)
- Back-of-house spaces serving 4th floor tenant require demolition
(no mention of this in the CIP report or the PSI report, we can find no document that makes reference to this)
- Logistical complexity of reconstructing a new pier head, below overhang of the inverted pyramid, will increase cost of both the demolition and new construction
(this was one reason the ADI quote builds a seawall around the pier building. Yes, the demolition of less than half of the pier-head only would cost 40% more for that small section only, but all you need to do to cancel that out is find the demolition company that the Maltzan Lens group plan to use, and the total demolition cost will be one third of the Moffatt Nichol demolition quote, so you still save money, if the Maltzan demolition figure is real that is)
- Renovating the inverted pyramid does not solve the design inefficiencies requiring significant annual taxpayer subsidies
(as long as you have a pier, you will have a subsidy. The less impressive of a pier, the lower the subsidy. You get what you pay for Mr. Mayor. Is cutting the yearly subsidy in half for the Lens really worth losing more than ten times the retail space, the great restaurant views and the great economic impact that you have in the inverted pyramid?)
- All existing ground floor, retail and support spaces must be demolished
(this "fact" is a bit redundant, since he already mentions they won't be added back)
- Images show current state of concrete and re-bar deterioration underside of Pier
(this is for the approach and the collar again, not the five caisson supports for the pyramid building and elevator. Again, these are 90 years old and need to be replaced, nobody is debating you on that Mayor Foster)
Building Deficiencies:
(this is just a list of all of the things that do not meet codes on the existing pier buildings(windows, doors, alarm, plumbing, etc...). The inverted pyramid building needs to be gutted and refinished, and the ADI quote accounts for that within it's budget)
So there you have it, several of Foster's "facts" seem to have no factual support that we could find, big surprise, we know.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Mayor Bill Foster, Investing Our Money For Us
After reading the "unwitting pitchman" article from last week again, one of Mayor Bill Foster's quotes really stuck with us, in part because of how false what he said was. Here's the quote:
"There's no way in the world I would ask people to invest in a for-profit company"
It's not that we have a problem with him saying it, but if you are going to say something like that, shouldn't it be true? The fact is that he has pushed for the use of taxpayer money and tax credits to invest in private for-profit companies many times. One glaring example is the lackluster "rock and roll half marathon" that we have covered before where the city gave $30,000 in services for free to a private for-profit company, and more recently there is the nameless for-profit company that the city is planning to spend money and offer tax credits to in an effort to lure them St Petersburg, then there is the latest example of Wal-Mart, asking for a special designation so it can get $240,000 in tax credits for it's new Sam's Club on 34th St.
So the Mayor is in effect saying that he wouldn't possibly be a pitch-man for a company that rehabs houses in questionable neighborhoods of the city and tries to sell them for a profit, letting you the investor make the decision to put money in the venture or not, he would rather take you the taxpayer out of the decision-making loop entirely and just take your money and use it to enhance larger for-profit corporations that he likes.
Maybe what he said in the quote is true after all, he wouldn't "ask" people to invest in for-profit companies, he would just do the investing without asking the people who are paying for it.
"There's no way in the world I would ask people to invest in a for-profit company"
It's not that we have a problem with him saying it, but if you are going to say something like that, shouldn't it be true? The fact is that he has pushed for the use of taxpayer money and tax credits to invest in private for-profit companies many times. One glaring example is the lackluster "rock and roll half marathon" that we have covered before where the city gave $30,000 in services for free to a private for-profit company, and more recently there is the nameless for-profit company that the city is planning to spend money and offer tax credits to in an effort to lure them St Petersburg, then there is the latest example of Wal-Mart, asking for a special designation so it can get $240,000 in tax credits for it's new Sam's Club on 34th St.
So the Mayor is in effect saying that he wouldn't possibly be a pitch-man for a company that rehabs houses in questionable neighborhoods of the city and tries to sell them for a profit, letting you the investor make the decision to put money in the venture or not, he would rather take you the taxpayer out of the decision-making loop entirely and just take your money and use it to enhance larger for-profit corporations that he likes.
Maybe what he said in the quote is true after all, he wouldn't "ask" people to invest in for-profit companies, he would just do the investing without asking the people who are paying for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)