Is it about bringing people to the waterfront?
I read it more than once because the first time I felt the Herald was biased toward the plan, but the second time I read it, I felt Andres Viglucci and Charles Rabin, the reporters, were fair. We're mentioned in the article, here's the paragraph: "The opponents have also lashed out furiously at City Commissioner Marc Sarnoff, a Grove resident, who has actively championed the project, directing insults at him and Grove Bay supporters in public meetings, in e-mail blasts, and in comments posted on the Coconut Grove Grapevine blog. The blog, written by Tom Falco, who opposes the plan, has become the site of warring, sometimes blistering comments both pro and con from Grove residents."
Ouch. Maybe we can all be less blistering in our comments. You know what they say, people who speak low and calmly get more respect and attention than those that scream and yell.
One thing that I did not like in the article was from one of the Grove Bay principals, Jay Leyva who said, “Our goal from the beginning was to bring people to the waterfront. Our offices are right here, and I look out every day and see there is no one out there. We want to open it all up to the public."
This is the last sentence in the article.
But I ask Jay, Why? Why take a sleepy little waterfront and bring the masses, other than money I mean? Why not have a peaceful, quiet place that people are enjoying now. And there are plenty of people there now already. If you cared about people and the waterfront, you would ask for a park or something, not a bunch of restaurants and who knows what else. The Herald article mentions a convenience store on the first floor of the garage. A 7-11 or what? What does that mean?
It's like saying Matheson Hammock is just too quiet, let's bring in retail to bring more people, or, "Hey, that golf course is too quiet, let's stick a restaurant right in the center to bring more people." I'm trying to think, aren't other cities' waterfronts like New York, Boston, Baltimore and others open?
A friend and I used to lament 20 years ago, how in Miami, every piece of green has something built on it. We can't have nature here. Pittsburgh, PA has more green than Miami.
It makes no sense to hand over the public land to a company for up to 80 years, and give them the submerged land as part of the deal and allow them to flip it at will. For example, what if Genting, the casino company, comes in and offers them $1 billion? Will they flip it? Then what? If you think our city commissioners will not vote in favor of whatever a future developer (or casino owner) with deep pockets wants, I have a baseball stadium to sell you, oh wait, you already own it.
Vote No on November 5. Enough with giving away public land for private enterprise.
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.