March 8, 1998

Waterfront Fight Could Benefit From Advice For Mules

We are told that to control a stubborn mule you first have to wham it over the head with a 2-by-4 to get its attention. A $3 million lawsuit filed last week against the Punta Gorda Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) for breach of contract is more like a 4-by-8.

The ongoing saga about how to develop 33 acres of prime waterfront property owned by the city passed the point of no return several months ago. However, some soreheads won’t give up. CRA’s latest gambit is to try and take back by the power of “eminent domain” four more acres of the former municipal camp/trailer site.

Eminent domain can be employed by a governmental body to take private property, at fair market price, for “compelling public use.” To explore the feasibility, CRA hired a Fort Lauderdale law firm specializing in that procedure.

Michael Haymans, an attorney with the local law firm of Farr, Farr, Emerich, Sifrit, Hackett and Carr, pointed out to the CRA last week in public meeting that the agency had transferred development rights to David Waltemath in July 1990. The agreement was restated last October when more acreage was extracted from the developer. By November, Waltemath had signed a contract with Harbor Walk, Inc., for construction of three condominium buildings of 20 apartments each. Haymans warned that even discussing the possibility of reneging is contrary to obligations in the CRA/Waltemath agreement.

Suing is Harbor Walk, Inc., local contractors Doug Crist and Lewis Johns. They are represented by the law firm of Wotitzky, Wotitzky, Mizell and Ross. One doesn’t have to be a Philadelphia lawyer to understand pertinent clauses in the CRA/Waltemath agreements affecting Harbor Walk:

• Article 2.03 of 1990 -- “The parties recognize that successful development of the project, and each component, is dependent upon continued cooperation. Each party shall make good faith, reasonable efforts to ensure that such cooperation is continuous and that the purposes of this agreement are carried out to the full extent.”
• Article 14.08 of 1997 -- “The (CRA) agency shall assist and cooperate with the developer to accomplish development of the project ... and will not enact or adopt, or urge or encourage adoption of any ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or orders that will result in any provision of this agreement to be in violation thereof.”

Now, the issue is joined. Heads will roll.

The County Commission complains it is losing revenue because of the “tax increment financing” provision at the heart of the CRA agreement it approved eight years ago.

At that time, property values of the old, central area of Punta Gorda had been flat or declining since 1975 -- while values in the rest of the city and county boomed.

Under the CRA agreement signed in 1989 by the county and city, a bright line was drawn at the property tax level then existing for the district. The amount was $80.5 million. For 30 years thereafter, increases in tax revenue must be plowed into public improvements for the CRA area. Taxes below the bright-line level continues to be collected directly by the city and county.

Punta Gorda put up its principal asset -- the prime, waterfront property -- and $2.4 million in “seed money” to prepare the site for a joint public/private development. The county put up nothing. Indeed, it diluted the project’s potential by demanding free land -- including $780,000 worth of site preparation -- for a courthouse.

An urban planning consultant recommended a “mixed use” package of destination-type hotel, expanded public marina, gazebo park, two miles of harbor walk, condos, restaurants and shops. The hotel, two condo buildings and a private office complex were sacrificed to placate critics.

Nevertheless, the prospect of redevelopment stimulated expansion in the CRA district. Decorative street lamps and brick planters were installed. New businesses came. Medical offices lined East Marion Ave. to a larger hospital. Many historic homes -- on the way to become a slum -- were renovated and now claim premium prices.

The CRA district tax revenue base has climbed to $124.8 million -- with the most yet to come in the remaining 22 years of the CRA. The revenue increase of $44.2 million went to improve public infrastructure in the CRA district.

Neither municipality “lost” revenue. On the contrary, the CRA stopped revenue losses while investing in huge, future increases.

Furthermore, to finance a new courthouse and a county jail, Punta Gorda citizens voted for the four-year one-mill sales tax hike costing them $4 million.

All in all, the county has made out like a bandit.

The hue and cry to “save Laishley park” is disingenuous at best, intellectually dishonest at worst.

Laishley Park is one acre behind the post office. The remaining 32 acres are filled land in the harbor or former business properties cleared to attract “tin can” tourists during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Punta Gorda has added 15 acres of park space in the CRA district. It has twice as much park land per capita than recommended by the state.

The county, on the other hand, has only about half the usable parks mandated by the state. Let he who is without sin, etc.

Critics of the Punta Gorda CRA are Johnny-come-latelys without knowledge of the objective, or are sufficiently wealthy to have no concern about additional taxes to build and maintain another Gilchrist-type park, or live somewhere else and have no right to stick in their bazoos.

Bring on the 4-by-8s.

PARTING SHOTS

Friend J.A. relates the following conversation between a teen-ager and a grandfather:

“Gee, Grandpa, your generation didn’t have to worry about all these social diseases. What did you wear for safe sex?

“A wedding ring,” replied Grandpa.

* * *

Motorists’ complaint: “Red lights are on longer than green lights.”

By Lindsey Williams, columnist for Sun Coast Media Group newspapers