Martino: Don’t touch our elections! Don’t touch our term limits! Leave them alone!
On Election Day, November 4, 2014 the registered voters of the City of Palm Beach Gardens were asked to vote YES or NO on the following ballot question…
SHALL THE PALM BEACH GARDENS CHARTER BE AMENDED TO ESTABLISH TERM LIMITS PROVIDING THAT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SERVE NO MORE THAN TWO CONSECUTIVE THREE YEAR TERMS
An overwhelming majority of approximately 80%, or 16,000 registered voters, answered YES. With that kind of majority vote there is no question or ambiguity about the registered voters’ intent. The resounding message to the City Council then and now is that CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SERVE NO MORE THAN TWO CONSECUTIVE THREE YEAR TERMS.
At the October 8th City Council meeting the duly appointed but less than representative of all of Palm Beach Gardens residents, City Charter Committee, submitted its report with its recommendations to the City Council. Three of their most controversial recommendations are…
- Change the Term Limit Law to allow City Council members to serve three consecutive three year terms instead of two consecutive three year terms. Comment: Ballot language must exclude present City Council members.
- Allow City Council members to run again for three consecutive three year terms after they have sat out one three year term. Comment: Ballot language must exclude present City Council members. When does this end?
- Allow for plurality of votes cast to elect City Council members rather than a majority vote as presently required. Comment: Majority must rule. It’s American and the democratic way.
- Change current election language from “a majority of votes cast” to language that would eliminate the intent that every vote cast must count in every contested race or issue without question, as the charter now states and Courts affirmed. Comment: Every vote that is cast must count per current charter language and as the Courts ruled in the Woods – Levy Council race, in 2016. No circumstance can undo a legally cast vote from being counted. A cast ballot is a sacred vote that is untouchable.
The City Council authorized the City Attorney to take the above along with other committee recommendations and legalize them for ballot consideration in March of 2018. I urge the City Council to reconsider their affinities toward these recommendations. I urge the City Council to vote NO to moving forward with a ballot question whose perception is that of self-serving political machinations.
In my opinion, the three recommendations above undermine and thwart the will of the 16,000 registered voters who voted for the Term Limits Law. In essence these recommendations disenfranchise the ballots of 16,000 registered voters. It also conflicts with the results of several candidate lawsuits and the City’s own lawsuit in which two levels of County courts validated the Term Limits Law as is.
Still further, as history suggests, a March 2018 election with no contested Council races in Palm Beach Gardens would generate a voter turnout of approximately 10% of the registered voters, considerably less than a November election. Thus, a small minority vote of, perhaps, 1,500 votes could obviate the votes of 16,000 registered voters.
The ink is hardly dry on the codification of the Term Limits Law. None of the current City Council members have served a single term yet. Their seats are barely warm! Yet they are changing a Law that they clearly understood existed and applied to them when they very recently, March 8, 2017, stood for election to the City Council. In fact, if not for the Term Limits Law, perhaps, none of them would be serving as City Council members. Their opportunity to serve is in many respects because of the Term Limits Law.
My message to the City Council is a simple one…
Don’t touch our elections! Don’t touch our term limits! Leave them alone!
PBGWatch to Host Council Candidate Forum 2/28
PBGWatch to co-host Council Candidate Forum 2/25
Martino: Special Interest Money against Term Limits in the Gardens
Is the Palm Beach Gardens term limits ballot initiative a referendum on the present City Council members, as some would say? I would answer, no, not really. However, in the final days before the November 4th election, evidence suggests I may be wrong. A slick piece of literature has showed up in my mailbox. It suggests that, maybe, the present City Council members would prefer to have the term limits ballot questions be about them.
On the City Council’s behalf the sham Political Pac, “Citizens to Protect the Gardens”, has reared its ugly head again, as it did in the March City Council election. During the City Council March election this Political Pac was fueled primarily with money from business oriented organizations and corporations, or as some would say, special interest money. So, speculation would suggest special interest monies are again flowing into Palm Beach Gardens to influence the November 4th term limits ballot questions.The special interest money, as it did in the March City Council election, is underwriting the status quo which equates to preserving the present City Council members.
Rationalizing and recognizing the “Citizens to Protect the Gardens” Political Pac special interest money, as well as, the messaging espoused by its literature and signs for what they are, undoubtedly, is the best course for the residents of Palm Beach Gardens. In my opinion, emphasizing the status quo as the primary argument against term limits, as the literature suggests, is a weak debate position to argue from. But usually, when special interests are happy with the status quo that is where their debate points begin and end.
I am not a Political Pac. However, as a 50 year Gardens resident and a former 20 year Mayor and City Council member, I can offer a reasoned voice to the term limit debate. I think it is reasonable to suggest that it is the height of arrogance for anyone to think and state that the members of the present City Council are the only answer to good leadership for our City. I will forgo all of my other discussion points to speak to some of what I will refer to as “actuals”. Some of these are…
* The “Father of our Country” and our first President, George Washington, self imposed term limits on himself after two terms, and went back to his farm.
* Barack Obama, our current President and the leader of the free world, is term limited.
* Governors, state legislators, county commissioners, local City Council representatives, accept term limits.
I have thought long and hard about the term limits ballot questions. I have home worked and analyzed both sides of the term limits debate. As a result, I am comfortable in saying that it is time for term limits for our City Council representatives.
I will be voting, YES, for both term limits ballot questions. That is my choice. Please make your choice. The term limits ballot questions are on the last page.
Please vote on Tuesday, November 4th.
Martino: Vote on the Term Limits Questions
On October 18th the local section of the Palm Beach Post contained a news article, “Council terms may be capped”. It highlighted the November 4th, Palm Beach Gardens ballot initiative for TERM LIMITS. I found the article to be informative, as well as, revealing. The information was appreciated and should help Gardens residents to better understand the Term Limit issue.
I compliment the citizen’s group that finally succeeded in bringing the term limit initiative to the ballot for Gardens residents to cast their vote, “YES” or “NO”. As a long time Gardens resident I am resigned to the fact that it is time for term limits for our City Council representatives. So I will be casting a”YES” vote to both questions.
What I found revealing was the comments and quotes from the three long-time City Council members, 25-year veteran Joe Russo, 22-year member Eric Jablin, and 11-year officeholder David Levy. According to Russo and Levy it takes 5 to 6 years to learn the job. Levy laments, “I had no idea what a City Council member did … didn’t understand budgets, zoning, or impact fees.” Jablin says incumbents have been reelected because they are doing a good job. In more caustic comments Jablin says, “The people who are behind this have run against us and lost … they can’t beat the competition, so they want to eliminate it.”
To Mr. Russo and Mr. Levy I reply, if it takes a person 6 years to understand the basic responsibilities of the City Council that person should not be a candidate to begin with. Having witnessed the current City Council’s confusion during the recent 2015 budget meetings, it is my opinion, that after 25 years of incumbency the City Council still may not understand the processes of creating a City budget.
To Mr. Jablin I say, no one has said, and term limits certainly will not, eliminate the competition for votes. Term limits will simply make the competition for votes somewhat fairer for all contestants, and not just incumbents. Open for debate is the supposition that current incumbents have been re-elected because they have done a good job. Part of that debate is the very real possibility that the current incumbents have been re-elected not solely based on the good job hypothesis but due to block voting in certain sections of the City.
To the registered voters of Palm Beach Gardens I say, please search the ballot for the TERM LIMIT questions and vote, “YES” or “NO”.
Former Mayor Martino on the Budget: Tell the Council to move to Rollback!
In my opinion, the most important responsibility of an elected City Councilperson is the preparation and presentation of a City’s annual budget. A City budget should be fiscally responsible while providing for the health, safety, welfare, and recreation of its residents. It should provide for livable wages and benefits for the employees who provide and maintain the City’s necessary municipal services. In essence, a City’s budget provides for the quality of life that residents expect to enjoy as a result of their tax contributions. From my perspective, a City’s budget is more than just an Administrative to do list; it is an annual “living promise” that the City will protect, improve, and enhance, the lives of all of the City’s residents with fiscal integrity.
The taxpayers of Palm Beach Gardens have incurred the same economic hardships in the last several years as referenced in the Finance Department’s budget comments to the City Council. The beleaguered taxpayers are constantly hit with the drip, drip, drip of small but steady tax increases every fiscal year, by all and various taxing bodies. Residents are facing rising costs, such as, health care, food, utilities, and so forth. Many of our City’s residents are on fixed incomes and some have faced the ugliness of unemployment.
In recognition of these realities, it is my recommendation that the Palm Beach Gardens City Council set operating millage policy at the rollback level of 5.4082 mills, instead of the proposed 5.7404 millage, and instruct the Administration accordingly. This would be a minimal amount of appreciated relief for the taxpayers. I would strongly urge and encourage the City Council to move in this direction.
The 2015 budget proposes to spend $ 135,329,444. To reach the rollback millage rate of 5.4082 would require an estimated $ 3,000,000 decrease in spending which is approximately 2.2%. As a former Mayor and City Councilman I feel comfortable in stating that by combining some spending reductions with a small revenue supplement from the burgeoning reserve accounts and, perhaps, finding a few more dollars on the revenue side would accomplish rollback millage without causing any financial problems to City’s fiscal health. According to the information in the budget, various reserve funds total $ 39,720,548. That’s a lot of reserve. Just in the Unspecified Balance Reserve Fund, alone, there is $ 23,470,597 which is 32% of operating expenses. This is nearly double the required minimum reserve balance of 17% established by policy.
Mayor Premuroso exhibited his concern for the residents and his leadership by offering to move toward the rollback millage rate at the September 3rd meeting. But with possible exception of Councilwoman Tinsley, Vice-Mayor Jablin and Council members Levy and Russo were less than enthusiastic to take up the taxpayers cause and embrace the Mayor’s suggestion. I would encourage anyone reading this memorandum to email and/or contact the City Council members (info here) and persuade them to, at the minimum, support Mayor Premuroso’s position to move the millage rate closer to rollback rate of 5.4082 mills.
PGA Waterfront Project – PZ&AB Public Workshop on July 8th – Save the date!
Many of you have expressed a great interest in knowing more about the plans for the PGA Waterfront proposed project, by the developers of Harbourside Place in Jupiter. The project will be coming before the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board (PZAB) meeting next Tuesday. Come early and expect a full house! Watch the Palm Beach Post for more details in the coming days.
When: Tuesday, July 8th at 6pm
Where: City Hall Council Chambers
The project is described in the list of Major Projects on the City’s website as follows:
PGA WATERFRONT WMXD PUD (PETITION #: PPUD-14-01-000034)
(PETITION #: CPSS-14-01-000006)
(PETITION #: ANNX-13-12-000007)
(PETITION #: CONC-13-12-000025)
(PETITION #: CPTA-14-01-000027)
(PETITION #: LDRA-14-01-000051)
11401 ELLISON WILSON RD
Project Manager: Peter Hofheinz/Dawn Sonneborn
Project Agent: Dodi Glas
Company: Gentile Glas Holloway O’Mahoney & Associates, Inc
Property Owner: Rocco Cantore, Water Club Associates, Ltd. Chris and Sandra Erneston,
Christopher Doyle
Description: A request for annexation and redevelopment of 7.95 acres of
land at the southwest corner of PGA Blvd and Ellison Wilson Rd. The proposed
development will consist of 150 residential Multi-family homes, a 160 room Hotel,
7,500 square feet of Retail, 35,000 square feet of Office, 32,000 square feet of Restaurant
with outdoor seating, and 30 Marina slips with public and private dockage.
|
LOCATION MAP |
|
|
APPLICATION |
|
|
DRC MEETING DATE |
MAY 6, 2014 |
|
PZAB PUBLIC WORKSHOP |
JULY 8, 2014 |
|
PZAB PUBLIC HEARING |
TBD |
|
PZAB STAFF REPORT |
TBD |
|
PZAB MEMO |
N/A |
|
SITE PLAN OR RENDERING |
|
|
CITY COUNCIL DATE |
TBD |
|
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT |
TBD |
|
APPROVAL DATE |
TBD |
|
ORD/RESOLUTION # |
TBD |
City Council Meeting Thursday April 3rd
The next City Council Meeting will be this Thursday, April 3rd at 7pm at City Hall.
Election results and appointment of the Mayor and Vice-Mayor along with Board Appointments will be first on the agenda. Presentations will include an All Aboard Florida update, DOT PGA Blvd and Beeline Highway, and Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) award.
Two issues of long term importance to residents that arose from last month’s meetingwill be on the agenda:
- Ordinance 6, 2014 – will reduce the number of petitions required to introduce a citizen-initiated ballot question to 10% from 15% of registered voters voting in the last general election. This is not technically a Charter change, but a modification to the enabling ordinance about elections. It only requires that the Council pass it and will not be on the November ballot. The topic arose as a result of a lawsuit served on the city by the group Palm Beach Gardens Needs Term Limits. This item is on the Regular Agenda
- Charter Review Committee – under Items for Council Discussion and Action, there is a chart of the history of prior committees and actions taken/not-taken as a result of their deliberations. Those of you who have served or participated in prior charter reviews may know how members were selected.
Residents of Sunset Drive and 40th Terrace will be especially interested in Resolution 26, 2014: City Council consideration of certain infrastructure improvements for properties along Sunset Drive, 401h Terrace North and Brenna Lane pursuant to the City Neighborhood Improvement Assessment Program (NIAP) and adoption of an associated special assessment.
Tony Doris of the Palm Beach Post has written an overview of the upcoming meeting here with comments by council member Russo.
The short form of the agenda can be found here and the full agenda/long form here.
We get the government we deserve – and it’s up to us to watch what they do. Hope to see you there.
Former Mayor Martino Asks Penetrating Questions about the Stadium
Michael Martino sent a letter to the Palm Beach Gardens City Council on November 4th, 2013, along with a long list of questions that he feels need to be addressed about the Stadium. You can read his cover letter here.
The former Mayor and City Council member separates his questions into 3 categories – Transparency, Comprehensive Planning and Financial, and then has a series of suggestions. These are all worth reviewing and we residents should challenge our current council to consider and respond to the points made:
Transparency Questions
1. It has been reported that the Houston Astros’ owner, Mr. Jim Crane, first contacted the City about the stadium complex 18 months ago, approximately April of 2012. If that is true why hasn’t the City Council had a publicly advertised meeting to discuss this major policy issue?
2. If the City Council has not publicly discussed it’s interest in this very hyped stadium complex, why would an astute, obviously very successful businessman and owner of the Major League Baseball franchise known as the Houston Astros, infer that the Astros’ plans to move their spring training facilities to Palm Beach Gardens are “95 per cent” complete and “need only a final vote by the Palm Beach Gardens City Council”?
3. According to newspaper articles discussions have been held between certain unknown city officials and major league baseball officials. Who were these city officials?
4. Has the City Council established policy at a publicly advertised meeting to instruct the city administration to pursue a stadium complex to house major league spring training facilities in Palm Beach Gardens? If no policy concerning a stadium complex for Palm Beach Gardens has been discussed or established by the City Council why did the City hire a private public relations firm to market a stadium complex? Who authorized the expenditure? Was the request to hire a private public relations firm publicly advertised? If the City Council has not publicly stated a policy to pursue this massive stadium complex, who has or is directing the city administration to do so?
5. Assuming the private public relations firm that is marketing the stadium complex was hired and is working for the City where are the funds coming from and what is the contract costs and how is it structured? To what degree, if any, are city employee man hours being used to support this public relations firm?
6. Who prepared and paid for the preliminary sketches and information that have been used in various presentations by city representatives as reported in newspapers? Who prepared and paid for the site plans and various other information boards for the October 16th public meeting? Are these available for the public to peruse?
7. Who authorized the presentation of said stadium complex to the public at the Doubletree Hotel on PGA Boulevard on October 16th and what was the cost? Did the City Council either individually or collectively review this presentation prior to this date?
8. 82 acres of land purchased with bonds for recreational and cultural use off Central Boulevard owned by Palm Beach County is being considered in consort with some 35 acres of adjacent city owned land for said stadium complex. When did the City Council publicly discuss purchase of the County land for a stadium complex?
9. I believe the City is declaring “confidentiality of records” under Florida Statute 288.075 F.S., which exempts 119.07 (1) F.S. and Article I of the State Constitution, the Sunshine Law. I would argue that Section 288.075 is not pertinent to the stadium complex issue. However, that debate is now not necessary because…
a. In 288.075 F.S. section (2) Plans, Intentions, and Interests, paragraph (b) states “… in this state is confidential and exempt from s. 119.07 (1) and s. 24 (a), Art. I of the State Constitution for 12months after the date an economic development agency receives a request for confidentiality or until the information is otherwise disclosed, whichever comes first”.
b. The City and the Houston Astros’ owner, Mr. Jim Crane, have been both been publicly vocal about their Plans, Intentions, and Interests and according to reports the City was contacted about this stadium complex over 18 months ago.
10. In a recent mailing I received thanking me for my attendance at the October 16th presentation it states “the City has no future public meetings planned”. Hopefully, there are no private meetings planned. I strongly urge the City Council to hold an advertised Public Hearing very soon to announce to their intentions concerning this massive stadium complex development. The residents deserve to know your policy positions both individually and collectively.
These are just a few of the many questions that have been raised. There will be many more.
Comprehensive Planning Questions
1. Does the City of Palm Beach Garden’s Comprehensive Plan consider, recommend, or speculate that a stadium complex of the magnitude and massiveness that is being considered should be located in the city?
2. Regardless of how well planned and built a stadium complex may be, or how many safeguards are promised or legislated to protect the neighbors, if it’s located in an area of the city that is not appropriate, the question remains how does a stadium complex enhance the quality of life for the immediate neighborhoods and for all of the residents of Palm Beach Gardens?
3. The land under consideration for this stadium complex is in the middle of predominately planned residential neighborhoods, in close proximity to the City’s tennis complex, and very near the desirable and first rate educational facilities, known as Timber Trace Elementary School and Watson B. Duncan Middle School. 82 acres of the site under consideration is land purchased by the County for cultural and recreational considerations. Those considerations could, would, and should blend and harmonize with the existing residential neighborhoods. Will a stadium complex of the magnitude proposed stretch those considerations beyond their limitations?
4. With existing development already in place in this general neighborhood, development approved but not yet built, and future considerations for development under the guidance of the City’s existing comprehensive plan, is it not questionable whether this same neighborhood can handle the stress of a massive stadium complex?
5. Recently the State Department of Transportation reported that an interchange to I-95 is being considered in the same general neighborhood of the proposed stadium complex which further complicates an already complex situation. Should this interchange not be planned and coordinated with a regional approach to the vehicular traffic needs generated by all the existing and planned growth for this area of the city? If the stadium complex becomes a reality should its traffic consequences not be a part of this conversation?
6. As suggested by the stadium complex site plans and information presented at the public presentation on October 16th I question the planning for traffic concerns in the immediate area and neighborhoods. I also am not satisfied with, or perhaps I did not fully comprehend, the City’s approach to alleviating the regional traffic concerns this major addition to this area of the city will cause.
7. Traffic performance standards will be further taxed by the year-round use and magnitude of this stadium complex. As the City requested and the County granted when the Mirasol Development was approved, traffic performance standards may have to be suspended, waived, or ignored at many of the city’s major intersections. PGA Boulevard and Military Trail is only one example.
These are just a few of the many questions that have been raised. There will be many more.
Financial Questions
1. Assuming the City will own the stadium complex, all royalties, incomes, expenses to pay for and build, to operate, and to maintain, to insure, etc., are responsibilities accrued to the City. Is the City prepared for these huge fiscal requirements? Is the City prepared to be a landlord to the degree that this stadium complex will demand?
2. It has been reported and presented by city officials that the financing for the stadium complex will come from two sources, the State of Florida and a Palm Beach County tourist tax known as the “Bed Tax”. Assuming a bond of some kind would be the financial instrument to underwrite the stadium complex will these funding sources be sufficient without the full faith and credit of the City or any portion thereof being exposed? Are there any “strings” attached to these funding sources? What will be the consequences for the City if these funding sources do not measure up to expectations in the future? As an example the “Bed Tax” will undoubtedly fluctuate with the condition of the national and local economies. As referenced to me at the October 16th meeting, another concerning example is that the state funds will be disbursed over a 37 year period, so, without stringent safeguards I find this troubling for future city fiscal responsibilities.
3. How will the city pay for the 82 acres under consideration for purchase from Palm Beach County for this stadium complex? Is it possible to fold the cost of the 82 acres into the financial instrument that will be created to fund the stadium complex?
4. How will the City be reimbursed for the portion of the 35 acres it is giving up to the stadium complex site? How will the City be reimbursed for the improvements it may lose that exist on the City owned 35 acres? Is it possible to fold the costs of the City owned 35 acres into the financial instrument that will be created to fund the stadium complex?
5. A natural disaster, such as, a hurricane could prove to be catastrophic both in a physical and financial way. How will the stadium complex be insured and how will those costs be paid for now and into the future?
6. I strongly support the City Council members desire to not use ad valorem taxes for this stadium complex now and in the future. To keep a no tax pledge for any good reason, however, will be difficult. This City Council and future ones will have to be vigilant, creative, and tough. As an example, I would speculate that the no ad valorem tax pledge has already been tarnished with still more ad valorem monies being contemplated according to the information given to me at the October 16th presentation. The City has incurred costs for the public relations firm, city employee man hours, and the site plan and presentation materials used at the October 16th presentation. In an answer to a question I posed concerning how the City contemplated paying for the County’s 82 acres I was informed that the non ad valorem recreational impact fee accounts and the City’s reserve accounts which are ad valorem funds, were possibilities. Also, answers to questions about future fund sources for maintenance and other extraneous costs sure to be incurred received fuzzy responses. How will this City Council ensure that no ad valorem taxes now or in the future will be used to supplement the fiscal needs of this stadium complex?
7. A funding source which we have not heard from is the two baseball organizations that are mentioned as the other interested parties in this stadium complex proposal. I would point out according to a respected news organization that of the 30 major league baseball franchises the very motivated Houston Astros are the 16th most valued franchise at $800,000,000. The other less vocal team considering this stadium complex is the Toronto Blue Jays valued at $950,000,000 which is 12th on the value list. Together the two teams suggested market value is $1,750,000,000. That is a lot of digits and zeroes! Will these financially well off organizations be asked to finance any portion of this stadium complex?
These are just a few of the many questions that have been raised. There will be many more.
Suggestions for Consideration
1. Find another location with less existing neighborhood intrusiveness for this stadium complex.
2. If the City Council determines its policy should be to continue with the present site selection then a complete and thorough review of all the major facets of the proposal for the stadium complex needs to be accomplished which should include but not be limited to site planning, regional and neighborhood traffic concerns, all safety aspects for immediate neighbors, adequate buffering for immediate neighbors from all noise, lights, etc., financial and contractual aspects, purchase of the County land, and so on.
3. I would suggest that the planning strategy for the overall acreage being considered for the stadium complex development be treated similar to a Planned Community District (PCD) as PGA National, Ballen Isles, and the Gardens Mall developments were. In my opinion this will better accommodate and integrate all of the infrastructure needs, such as, drainage, roads, sidewalks, environmental concerns, etc. The stadium, practice fields, and other development parcel considerations could then be considered as individual Planned Units of Development (PUD) inside the PCD. Even though they are already built and in place the two schools, the City’s tennis complex and park, should be considered as existing PUD’s inside the PCD also. This type of planning approach may allow for more interest and creativity to the development, as well as, make it safer and less intrusive to the neighborhood. In my opinion the site plans which were displayed to the public lacked the Gardens imagination. Again I stress the need to plan for the regional affronts this complex will cause to this area of our city.
4. Municipal services, such as, police and fire protection, public works maintenance requirements, etc. must have a place in the overall plans for this stadium complex.
5. Speaking to the internal traffic needs of this complex, my approach would be to segregate the impacts…
a. Abandon any consideration of linking Shady Lakes Drive with 117th Court North or any new road under consideration, if there is one. No access from PGA Blvd. should be considered.
b. Development plans should include two ingress and egress accesses from the site onto Central Boulevard with signalization if deemed necessary. A new ingress/egress access road should be planned on the north side of the site to primarily serve the stadium.
c. I would suggest major improvements to 117th Court North to accommodate the existing schools, tennis facilities, city recreation areas, and proposed new practice fields.
6. External traffic considerations I would suggest may be needed are…
a. Coordinate site requirements with planned I-95 interchange in this region of the city
b. Intersection improvements at Central Boulevard and Hood Road
c. Intersection improvements at Central Boulevard and Military Trail
d. Intersection improvements at Alternate A1A and Hood Road
e. As feasible and possible provide for road improvements to Hood Road and Central Boulevard as needed and required.
f. Improve other major intersections which may be affected by the stadium complex, such as, PGA Boulevard and Military Trail.
g. PGA Blvd. from Military Trail west to possibly the western most entrance of PGA National may receive stress from this stadium complex that will require improvements of some sort. Of particular concern would be the Turnpike Interchange area from Central Boulevard west. The ingress and egress into commercial developments and existing residential developments, such as Ballen Isles, Old Palm, PGA National and Mirasol, may require some improvement considerations.
h. Undoubtedly other roads that will be used to traverse to this stadium complex, such as, Military Trail, Hood Road, Central Boulevard, and possibly Alternate A1A in some areas, will need improvement considerations.
i. Again I stress the need to plan for the regional traffic and transportation offenses this complex will cause to this area of our city.
Please accept the above as my suggestions in the constructive way they are offered.
Details on proposed Stadium, Open House on 10/16
We wrote up a summary of last week’s City Council meeting including discussion about the proposed Baseball Stadium.
Please make every effort to attend next week’s workshop on it. Ask your questions. Read the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). Note that the presumption appears to be that this project will happen. Please inform your friends and neighbors and encourage them to attend as well. Get your questions answered.
Here is a link to the City’s notice about the Open House and FAQs are here.
Willie Howard covers the workshop thoroughly as a front page story in today’s Palm Beach Post. If you subscribe you can read the whole story online, or here is a text version.
We get the government we deserve – and it’s up to us to watch what they do. Hope to see you there.