Kathleen Ford bases Pier policy on the facts - Tampa Bay Times LTE

[SugarShack]

Re: Save the Pier? That's fiscal foolery June 28, editorial

Base Pier policy on the facts

Parsons Brinkerhoff analyzed the Pier. In 2005, the City Council amended the Intown Redevelopment Plan to include the Pier project: replacement of Pier approach ($22.2 million); replacement of Pier head structure ($12 million); replacement of Pier head retail ($6.1 million); restoration of structurally sound inverted pyramid structure ($4.3 million); and design/permitting administration of $5.4 million, totaling $50 million. This is where the $50 million Pier project originated. (The 2011 council deleted the specific line-items from the redevelopment plan.)

The Pier Task Force suggested widening the bridge from 100 feet to 150 feet. Neither the Southwest Florida Water Management District nor the Army Corps of Engineers would approve of this because they limit reconstruction to the footprint to protect the Tampa Bay Aquatic Preserve. The city's $87 million estimate was derived from this never-to-be-allowed widening of the bridge.

The inverted pyramid is a significant city real estate asset. It is structurally sound. Furthermore, independent engineers have estimated that the bridge can be replaced and the inverted pyramid building renovated within the $50 million budget. Moreover, a newly replaced bridge and renovated building would reduce or eliminate the subsidy. City staff had advised the City Council that the city made a profit from the Pier leases when the costs associated with maintaining the bridge were removed.

Facts should be the basis for all city decision making. Here, the citizens of St. Petersburg have a significant investment in their Pier. They should have all the facts and have a vote on whether their Pier should be demolished or renovated. Of course, I thought it would be fiscally prudent to obtain voter approval prior to spending millions of dollars on the controversial Lens design. A year ago I asked for this vote. So now we find ourselves facing the Aug. 27 vote where we will see whether Mayor Bill Foster and City Council wasted $3.8 million on Maltzan's Lens.

Kathleen Ford, candidate for mayor, St. Petersburg

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/letters/wednesdays-letters-educating-the-voters-would-help/2129640

[SugarShack]

1. Kathleen does not have an opinion, she speaks of policy and money already set, to refurbish.

IF they want to change what was already put on the books, and change the waterfront, it is to go to the voters. That was her opinion. Now, the voters will V O T E

Thanks Kathleen for being a big part of bringing democracy to St. Petersburg, FLA!!!

[HooptieWagon]

2. The pyramid would still require an operating subsidy,

More than double the maintainence costs of a new pier. When the pyramid was built, there were no resturants downtown, the Vinoy was an empty shell, and there were no museums, etc. Only green benches. Something was needed to draw people downtown. That was 40 years ago. Now there are plenty of resturants, museums, shops, the reopened Vinoy, etc to draw people downtown. Its no longer necessary for the city to subsidize a couple resturants and tourist gift shops in the pyramid. It is functionaly obsolete. What to replace it with is a good question. While I don't think The Lens is ugly, I also don't think its the best fit for St Pete. It could be the location is even no longer the best fit. Certainly there should be more discussion and study.
Ford has long been a divisive force. When on the City Council she was a loose cannon, and regularly made all kinds of unreasonable demands of city employees. Definitely, imo, she should not be leading the charge on any major decisions the city faces.

[SugarShack]

3. Please reread this part:

Moreover, a newly replaced bridge and renovated building would reduce or eliminate the subsidy.

Most of it has been to constantly repair. And, have you seen the upkeep on the illegal project?
Cleaning, painting of the sidewalks and walls? cleaning the "aluminum or cast panels"? And what will the cleaning products be, that will be getting washed into the bay?

And what about losing a fundamental piece of property called a PIER? 78,000 square feet of retail space! The sidewalk to nowhere has nothing!

[HooptieWagon]

4. Oh geesh. Cut it with the lies.

The Lens is not illegal. It may not be the best solution, but it is not illegal. Second, it doesn't matter if the peir has 78,000 sq ft of retail, or 780,000, or 7800. The pyramid simply does not generate traffic to support the retail shops and resturants there...which means an annual subsidy to the city of over $2m. Shops and resturants on Beach Drive are doing a booming business without subsidies from the city. Its foolish to double down on a project that is economically obsolete. No matter how much is spent refurbishing the existing pier, there will still be on-going maintainence costs, plus paying down the debts, and those costs will always be higher than the meager lease income. A different economic model is necessary for the 21st Century. I don't think either side has made a strong case that their plan is one that will fit the next 50-60 years.

[Coexist]

5. although I like The Lens much better

the existing Pier was not and will never be, well trafficked.

[HooptieWagon]

6. The Lens was the best of 3 bad choices.

IMO it just doesn't say "St Petersburg". I agree the old pier isn't worth sinking more money into. And we should be looking at if the location is even best for the future...perhaps a location where it can be tied in to the Pinellass Trail might be better? Need a fresh sheet of paper and a fresh committee.

[SugarShack]

7. The Lens offers nothing. A burning sidewalk to nowhere.

[HooptieWagon]

8. To a certain extent...

However, the elevated sidewalk in NY built atop old elevated RR tracks has proven an economic boon, drawing tourists and locals alike. Would that model work in St Pete? I dont know. But if its to be tried, it would make sense to locate it near the end of the Pinellass Trail. Like I said, the old pier is functionally obsolete, St Pete doesn't need subsidized resturants and shops to draw people downtown as 40 years ago, but I'm not convinced The Lens is the answer either.

[Coexist]

9. thats not correct, but that is public perception.

[SugarShack]

10. 78,000 sq.ft. of retail space is commerce. The new pier doesn't offer that.So far over 400 jobs lost