The “master developer” is composed of local yocals who have brought nothing to the table, but are demanding a $1.5 million fee. The baseball stadium can be built without giving anyone a $1.5 million fee. If these guys (or anyone else) can bring a tenant to the site, pay them a leasing fee. The city will have paid for all infrastructure, taken all the risk, leaving the “master developer” with the simple task of collecting all the profits.

Major elements of the “Fantasy Rendering” are gone, and gone forever. These include marina, parking garage, Conference Center, UWF Classrooms, museum. etc. The principals (Fetterman, Studer, UWF) have assigned the waterfront sites to themselves, leaving privated developemt with views of Main Street. Therefore, there will be NO desirable provate development.

Phase 1 will be the Final Phase. This is what will occupy the site.

1. One (1) baseball stadium.

2. One (1) asphalt lot for the baseball stadium.

3. And miscellaneous landscaping.

*Yawn*… Any more canards you want to trot out?

But before you do that, perhaps you could reveal to us a REALISTIC idea of how to reach that mystical “final build-out plan.” Does the city have another secret CRA District that it can use to float more bonds?

The developer selected by the CMPA is, for $40 million, proposing to build the items shown on this web site, PAGE 15.

http://www.ci.pensacola.fl.us/upload/images/CommunityDevelopment/PDFs/OB%20memo%20CMPA%203-9-09.pdf

The citizens of Pensacola, will receive the following items.

One (1) baseball stadium.

One (1) asphalt lot for the baseball stadium.

And miscellaneous landscaping.

This is NOT what the citizens of Pensacola voted on!

1) Depict Quint Studer as a con man who is getting “a $100 ballpark for $1!” If anyone debunks this by pointing out the actual numbers, and how Studer is not making any money off this deal,
2) Claim the lack of a competitive RFP process is proof of corruption; when someone brings up the voter referendum that affirmed the project,
3) Say the referendum was won by a “fantasy rendering” with features that were later dropped, even though the final build-out plan includes all the major elements from the Gindroz rendering. Complain about the money spent by Studer during the campaign, and how this fact should disqualify the results.
4) Rinse. Repeat.

It’s like a merry-go-round. Wheeeee!

A lot of people who voted “yes” in the referendum voted because they thought they were getting the Fantasy Rendering. Ray Gindroz did a beautiful job producing that rendering. The promoters of the stadium mailed that rendering out to every household in Pensacola. The News Journal printed it many times. It still can be seen in places such as this blog.

Unfortunately, the Fantasy Rendering is a false rendering. The city is not getting anything close to that rendering. The promoters of the stadium were shocked when they saw the rendering, because they knew it was nowhere near their budget. Many of the more impressive (and expensive) features, such as the marina and lighthouse, were deleted within a couple of weeks.

So basically, Joe, I feel that the referendum was approved through false advertising. But more importantly, key elements of the project have been deleted since the referendum. It is also probable that the financing plan that was promised before the vote will not be possible.

In short, Joe, the referendum is (or will be made) null and void.

On the other hand, you shouldn’t be given the opportunity to take public money and land just because you were the first one to ask for it.

“Charles Fairchild, chairman of Save Our City, the political action committee that led the fight against the park, said there would be no more opposition. ‘This will decide the issue,’ Fairchild said before the return of the referendum results. He said the real winners are Pensacola residents. ‘They asked for a referendum and were able to cast their vote to decide the issue,’ he said.”

Suppose you see an abandoned school building that you would like to turn into elderly housing. You approach the school board and ask to buy it. The school board is obliged to put the building out for public bids.

But first, you are under the misconception that S&S spent “time and money” developing their concept prior to city approval. The actual “approval” took place well before the public new about it. The approval took place during conversations between S&S, the attorney for S, and our City Manager, Tom Bonfield. Were members of the city council aware of these discussions? It would be hard to imagine that at least the top dogs knew what was going on.

Go back to my earlier post.

ABC Contractor approaches the City Manager with the idea that the city should award ABC with a $5 million contract to build a fire station. It is improper (if not illegal) for the city to award a $5 million contract to ABC just because ABC put that idea in the mind of the City Manager.

Hence, my accusation that the City Council performance was CORRUPT. I THINK that you have agreed with this line of thought. If not, please tell me where I am mistaken.

I am not familiar with any non-competitive bids regarding Plaza de Luna. Perhaps you are referring to the development at the end of Palafox Street. I am not familiar with the details of either of these projects, but it would not surprise me if you are correct. My response would be “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

Yes, a referendum was held. No, it did not decide the matter.