Speculator/developer CHESTER STOKES, his lawyers and the City of St. Augustine's staff are scrambling in the wake of the 3-2 vote against extending the Madeira planned unit development on January 25, 2016.
It was a great victory for those of us opposed to irrational exuberance in allowing destruction of natural resources -- in this case, carving up an historic 1916 Donald Ross golf course on a marsh for a controversial development on top of arsenic contaminated soil.
For more, see my earlier article here, "Speculator Not "Victim": 3-2 Vote Against Extending PUD for Former Ponce de Leon Golf Course ("Madeira" subdivision)," some 1800 words.
In contrast, the pro-developer The St. Augustine Record offered its readers only 188 words on this historic event on January 26 (Tuesday).
Today, it reports the developer lawyer's rote incantation of possible litigation challenging a legislative action (the rational basis test applies and it is very unlikely to prevail). Here's The St. Augustine Record's latest ineffectual stab (685 words) at explaining the denouement of this more than decade long drama, unadorned by any interviews with law professors or outside experts or activists:
Impact of Madeira vote evaluated by city, developer
Posted: January 29, 2016 - 11:38pm | Updated: January 29, 2016 - 11:48pm
By SHELDON GARDNER
sheldon.gardner@staugustine.com
City officials are reviewing the impact of a decision by City Commission to deny a developer more time to finish work at a development that broke ground more than 10 years ago.
Madeira, which is off U.S. 1 North, is one of a few large developments within the city limits and once included the Ponce de Leon Golf Resort and Convention Center. The property, at 1,069 acres, was annexed to the city in 2001, and the Madeira Planned Unit Development was approved in 2004 for up to 749 units.
Slowed by the recession, the developer is asking for five more years from Jan. 1, 2016, to complete Phases I and III and five years from Jan. 1, 2018, complete Phase II.
That request was turned down by the City Commission this week.
Some commissioners cited the fact that 74 houses have been built, though the project calls for hundreds of homes and was started more than a decade ago. Now, the city is analyzing the impact of the decision, including for homeowners in the development, and the developer is weighing options.
“One of those options is certainly litigation,” said Ellen Avery-Smith, attorney for the developer.
City Attorney Isabelle Lopez would only say the city is researching the effects of the decision and homeowners’ concerns.
“Right now we’re just trying to assess factually and legally where we stand on the situation,” she said.
Avery-Smith said the project has been under development since 2004, with millions of dollars of infrastructure in the ground.
“The owner cannot just walk away from [the] investment,” she said.
At this week’s City Commission meeting, city officials raised concerns about the possible impact of the commission’s votes. And some commissioners questioned letting the developer have more time.
Avery-Smith pointed to the 74 homes that have been built so far, out of the 749 possible.
“That’s exactly one of the things that concerns me is that you have less than 10 percent of it developed,” Commissioner Leanna Freeman said. “We continue every month to look at, consider and approve other PUDs based on what’s out there, and we don’t give very much consideration to what’s in the pipeline.”
After the property was annexed into the city in 2001, litigation delayed construction for a few years, Avery-Smith said.
But the number of homes built so far wasn’t the only point of contention.
City Attorney Isabelle Lopez cautioned the commission before the vote about an agreement that had been in place with the development.
“There was a settlement agreement with a laundry list of conditions. Some benefit the developer ... and some benefit private residents,” Lopez said. “My concern is that there has perhaps not been a full airing of all of those conditions and what would occur if this development essentially would shut down at this point, whether those conditions could be met or not, understanding that if a PUD is expired or any given phase is expired then building permits cannot be pulled.”
“Are you telling us we don’t have the ability to deny the extension? ... Because if we don’t then I don’t want these applications coming up here,” Freeman said.
“I’m simply saying that we had an abridged presentation today,” Lopez said. “If the City Commission is considering denying the extension, it would perhaps be wise to have a full analysis of the laundry list of conditions and see which ones could be met even if there is no extension and who would be impacted by those, and I, sitting here, cannot advise you of that because I have not gone through that analysis.”
Mayor Nancy Shaver supported Freeman’s comments and asked whether there was a basis for the caution.
David Birchim, planning and building department director, said if the PUD expired and the developer went to rezone, the conditions the city had required before could be lost. He also talked about complications with the phasing.
“If you don’t extend the phasing, phase three is already still active but you can’t get to phase three if you don’t extend the phasing for phase one,” Birchim said. “So that’s a big problem.”
COMMENTS
sponger2 01/30/16 - 08:01 am 42What's to evaluate?
You got funding from outside sources to clean the site, you weren't wanted in the first place, and now you didn't keep your word. Pack your S#$t and get the F out.
sponger2 01/30/16 - 09:58 am 50Check infrastructure expense at county budget office.
Every dollar they collect in tax revenue will cost between $1.18 and $1.27 in services unless the tax base for the house built exceeds about 350K. Plus, we didn't want it, and we don't have the schools to accommodate it. That's why we got the sales tax increase that they have already borrowed against, without yet collecting any revenue. Therefore, the more crap they build, the more it will cost us, not to mention the diminished quality of life by the noise, traffic and now overcrowded beaches, that cost twice as much to go to as a few years ago. Oh, and virtually no off site parking of course.
JoeJoe 01/30/16 - 10:33 am 20The question is
what will happen if they don't build it? Beautiful old golf course is lost forever.
sponger2 01/30/16 - 10:55 am 50With only 74 houses built (10%)...
Seems to me plenty of room to build another golf course. Certainty preferable to 700 more houses. Just make sure it's not a "modern" golf course. That is, lined with condos and houses so you feel like you're teeing off in your front yard.
sponger2 01/30/16 - 04:57 pm 10Can't build a golf course?
Can you say "World Golf Village"? How about "The Royals"? The dopes that run this area are going to allow an artificial pond in a state that's 11 feet above sea level and already surrounded by water, if not already underwater (swamp) near Twin Creeks.
Here's the long and short of it. The investors bought the property, found out it was poisoned with arsenic from the old methods used at the time the old golf course was built. So, it was unfit to build on for the purpose of housing. So, they got PUBLIC MONEY (that's you and I folks, the taxpayers) to pay for the cleanup. That is bailout number 1. Additionally, there was an issue with airport noise that needed to be mitigated. That's bailout number 2. Now, they failed to fulfill their agreement. I'm not buying bailout number three. Guess what? They made a bad investment. Investment requires risk. You don't always win. This is one of those times. It is not incumbent on the government or the population to extend or modify the agreement in any way. So the answer is YES. They might have to walk away, just like the rest of us in the real world, including but not limited to stock investors.
2 comments:
The Commission should have voted 5-0 in favor of the extension. Something is wrong with how this City looks at tax dollars.
tr
You are wrong. You don't appreciate the facts. Repent now, there's still time.
Post a Comment