Live blogging DIA

[Debbie Thompson]

What are the laws for riverfront access?  At the beach, the public has access below the high tide line.  If the riverwalk is built out over open water, like a dock, can the property owners block the construction like that?  Do they own the river too?

[Captain Zissou]

When I lived at the Peninsula, we would just jump off the onramp into the Crown Plaza's grass and then walk home on the riverwalk.  I no longer live over there, but I imagine other people are still doing the same thing.

This would be the 2nd or 3rd time the schoolboard property has obstucted the public good.  If they had allowed an easement through their parking lot, at least a portion of the San Marco Riverfront District project would have been built before the bust, which would make continuing to develop that parcel much easier.  They refused to sell their mulit-million dollar property despite the school system being woefully underfunded. 

They have no business being on the river, so I think any objections they have should be invalid.

[PeeJayEss]

^I am equally concerned about these changes to the riverwalk design, and apparently with no community input.

I also heard them say that there will be NO connection from the east side of the Main Street Bridge to the riverwalk simply because the hotel doesn't want too much activity behind their property.

In this case, someone walking (or running as I did yesterday right after the meeting) on that side of the bridge will see the riverwalk and have no perceivable access to it.  They would either have to go to Riverplace Blvd and then all the way down to the Strand/Peninsula to cross (which has it's own issues - lack of signage, sidewalk) OR cross back under the expressway, go back up the bridge, and use the sidewalk to Friendship Fountain and then back under the bridge.

And again, these decisions are being made with no community input and because of ONE private property owner.

I understand everyone is anxious to get these projects started, however, these are decisions we will be stuck with for many years to come.  If they need another 6 months to get this right, by all means, take it.

Who owns and maintains the bulkhead, I wonder (state, fed)? If the Crowne is going to play hardball, the City should phone-a-friend and play it themself. The property is kept dry and accessible by tax dollars, for which the public deserves consideration. Anyway, the better-functioning riverwalk is in the interest of the hotel. Those idiots!

What are the laws for riverfront access?  At the beach, the public has access below the high tide line.  If the riverwalk is built out over open water, like a dock, can the property owners block the construction like that?  Do they own the river too?

I believe the property is private until you hit the water (maybe MLW in this case). Any private docks, etc are built on easements from the state I'd imagine. Not like the beaches where the public owns the land, but there are still some rights. I don't see why this couldn't be done in a way that supersedes the property rights of the hotel.

[Noone]

DIA meeting 3/1/13 on 2013-94 first floor city hall at 9am. Open to the Public.
A new Authority.
Embrace it.
Or it
Will Embrace Us.
2009-442-Anyone?

[edjax]

Is there a list of all members with their email addresses anywhere?  Thanks

[tufsu1]

DIA meeting 3/1/13 on 2013-94 first floor city hall at 9am. Open to the Public.
A new Authority.
Embrace it.
Or it
Will Embrace Us.
2009-442-Anyone?

the purpose is to discuss the mobility fee

[Noone]

^2 hours out.

At noon in 2c city hall, Transparancy and Open Government.
On the agenda text messaging.
Speaking at a noticed meeting.

[tufsu1]

Today's one issue meeting was supposed to be relatively short (90 minutes)....after 3 hours of talking about the mobility fee, the DIA Board voted 6-1 to recommend to City Council that they deny the moratorium extension....Ennis gave a short presentation chock full of facts on why the fee needs to stay in place.

[Cheshire Cat]

Tufsu1, this is very good news.  Thank you for keeping us up to date on this meeting and thank you Ennis for giving this presentation!

Who was the one vote in support of a moratorium?

[tufsu1]

^Jim Bailey....although he may not have been in favor of the moratorium...perhaps he just didn't think DIA should weigh in...I left before the meeting was over, so I can't say for sure

[Jumpinjack]

Outstanding work, Ennis. I hope this gets the mayor up off his duff and speaking out against letting taxpayers take more hits for transportation needs.

[thelakelander]

Today, taught me that even their paid attorneys still have no clue to how the mobility plan/fee structure works or the impact of last year's moratorium on mobility fee waiver numbers through 2014.  There was one point in the meeting where they, the planning department, and Jim Bailey were confused on whether the amount of mobility fees waived were $3.1 million, $4.8 million, or $5 million.

No one pointed out that a good chunk of projects moving forward this year are eligible for mobility fee waivers from last year's experiment, which will keep the total loss in fees rising as building permits are pulled this year.  As of 2/13, funds waived were $4.8 million.  As of today, it's above $5 million.  I wanted to explain if every project that submitted a successful  application pulled a permit before their time expires, fees waived by that one year trial period could easily crack $20 million. 

The craziest thing though was a sheet showing all new development approved or underway between 9/19/2011 and 10/01/2012. Instead of putting in the total cost of each project, they put in the lower job cost.  That total came out to $82 million, which they then attempted to claim by waiving $3.1 million in fees (that was the actual waived fee total last October), it created $82 million worth of work. 

However, the spreadsheet clearly includes projects that didn't have a mobility fee (they just listed everything new started that year) and those (like 7-11) that were expanding regardless of the fee situation.  Sitting in the audience, it drove me crazy that no one of the DIA recognized and questioned that and that I could not point it out to them.  My guess is that half the council would not pick up on this either.

[Cheshire Cat]

First, thank you Ennis for going and giving your presentation with valid facts and figures.  I so feel your pain when you have to sit by and watch folks in leadership positions talking about issues of such great impact but clearly not understanding what is to be won and lost with each decision made.  I wonder how many understood or appreciate the fact that you and others in this community do all of this because we want a better city and that the time and expertise is given at personal time and expense?  Once realized, the incompetence of some in authority will drive you up the wall and then make you hit your head repeatedly on the rafters. 

I don't understand why Jim Bailey would vote to push the moratorium.  It makes no sense in view of it's past failure. I sure hope this is about misunderstood facts and not politics as I would be greatly disappointed if it were the latter. 

[fieldafm]

I wonder how many understood or appreciate the fact that you and others in this community do all of this because we want a better city and that the time and expertise is given at personal time and expense? 

You can also add 'losing business simply as retribution for not getting with the government handout program' to your list as well.

[Cheshire Cat]

I wonder how many understood or appreciate the fact that you and others in this community do all of this because we want a better city and that the time and expertise is given at personal time and expense? 

You can also add 'losing business simply as retribution for not getting with the government handout program' to your list as well.

Sadly there is truth to this statement.  I have seen this over and over in local government and politics.  Folks have gotten contracts pulled and all sorts of things for having the nerve to speak views in opposition to what the powers that be want to see happen. Pathetic really.