Some interesting thoughts on waterfront lease
Got this in email, long-time Grovite Jack King wrote this:
These are my comments regarding the lease. I am not an attorney, however there is an attorney reading this lease. I cannot comment on many sections of this lease; however, I did own a restaurant in Manhattan and signed restaurant leases in the past. Usually these leases are written by the Landlord's (Taxpayers in this case is Landlord) attorney. Did we the taxpayers write this lease?
If we want to save our hangars and develop the waterfront, we need to amend this lease.
The amended lease needs to be sited in the referendum and it needs to be attached to the ballot just as is done with GOBs. The changes agreed to by the Citizens and the lessee; and the ballot wording must prohibit any changes or tweaking at any future time after the referendum-just as this lease states now in its current form. The lease amended will still provide ample return to the lessee/licensee while protecting the interests of every city taxpayer and the quality of life of the citizens, taxpayers and visitors to the Coconut Grove Waterfront. Ron tells me the developer is willing to make changes. I am really happy to hear this.
As a taxpayer I do not want to pay to refurbish or rebuild or upgrade functional obsolescence in the buildings, or any infrastructure after 30 years. Nor should tomorrows taxpayer be responsible for subsidizing the leaseholder 30 years in the future.
As a taxpayer I want a plan tied to the referendum with specified standards.
As a taxpayer I want a specified standard of upkeep-not this vague nothingness referred to in the lease. I was in Shula's when it was first built and several times thereafter. I would not call this an A-class operation by any means. I would prefer a high end chain operator such as Morton's or Ruth Chris which will meet specified standards.
As a taxpayer I want to see a landscape plan and standard for landscape upkeep.
We do not want any possibility of gambling or arcades attached to our waterfront. We do not want a Trust for the Waterfront who answers to no-one. Please take a moment to read the lease which I am sure Ron can get for each one of you. We can have a good plan which suits the lessee and the taxpayers if we work together. This should be a win-win.
As my friend David said in a comment here: "This is the same gang that gave us the useless baseball stadium....enough said. " We need this to be a bumper sticker.
STOP THE PROJECT. PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION NOW.
These are my comments regarding the lease. I am not an attorney, however there is an attorney reading this lease. I cannot comment on many sections of this lease; however, I did own a restaurant in Manhattan and signed restaurant leases in the past. Usually these leases are written by the Landlord's (Taxpayers in this case is Landlord) attorney. Did we the taxpayers write this lease?
If we want to save our hangars and develop the waterfront, we need to amend this lease.
The amended lease needs to be sited in the referendum and it needs to be attached to the ballot just as is done with GOBs. The changes agreed to by the Citizens and the lessee; and the ballot wording must prohibit any changes or tweaking at any future time after the referendum-just as this lease states now in its current form. The lease amended will still provide ample return to the lessee/licensee while protecting the interests of every city taxpayer and the quality of life of the citizens, taxpayers and visitors to the Coconut Grove Waterfront. Ron tells me the developer is willing to make changes. I am really happy to hear this.
As a taxpayer I do not want to pay to refurbish or rebuild or upgrade functional obsolescence in the buildings, or any infrastructure after 30 years. Nor should tomorrows taxpayer be responsible for subsidizing the leaseholder 30 years in the future.
As a taxpayer I want a plan tied to the referendum with specified standards.
As a taxpayer I want a specified standard of upkeep-not this vague nothingness referred to in the lease. I was in Shula's when it was first built and several times thereafter. I would not call this an A-class operation by any means. I would prefer a high end chain operator such as Morton's or Ruth Chris which will meet specified standards.
As a taxpayer I want to see a landscape plan and standard for landscape upkeep.
We do not want any possibility of gambling or arcades attached to our waterfront. We do not want a Trust for the Waterfront who answers to no-one. Please take a moment to read the lease which I am sure Ron can get for each one of you. We can have a good plan which suits the lessee and the taxpayers if we work together. This should be a win-win.
As my friend David said in a comment here: "This is the same gang that gave us the useless baseball stadium....enough said. " We need this to be a bumper sticker.
STOP THE PROJECT. PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION NOW.
posted by Tom Falco at 6:00 AM
YOU MAY NOT LIFT THE PHOTOS & TEXT. IT'S COPYRIGHTED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. YOU CAN HOWEVER SHARE A STORY ON SOCIAL MEDIA BY USING THE LINKS HERE.
For linking to this one story, just click on the time it was posted & just this story will open for sharing - only through social media. Not copying and pasting.
2 Comments:
someone needs to reachout to Businessman Norman Braman, remember him, he got Alvarez out!!!!!
The plan has no boats launched at the Scotties site, boats will be only launched at Grove Harbor
Less competition means higher prices and less access to the Bay
I live in Coral Gate and plan to vote against this plan.
Marc
Post a Comment
<< Home