Money Wasted

Lake Worth Utilities
Waste Meter
... for an arc flash study that Mr. Reyes was qualified to do in house and at no cost to taxpayers.
... the estimated engineering cost of the express feeder which could also be done in house at no cost to taxpayers.
... wasted when insurance requirements were circumvented by the city manager and utility director.
... wasted when plant manager Dave Mulvay’s first attempt at writing a scope of work contained a defect that cost taxpayers an extra $123,098 for tainting the bidding process and giving unfair advantage to one bidder over another. - April 2009
... wasted when the Matrix organizational study to save taxpayers money was scrapped in favor of higher cost outsourcing by city manager Stanton.
... wasted engineering design cost of water piping and tanks (original county water deal) that will never be built.
... wasted when additional costs were incurred for not following insurance procedure on transformer repair.
... wasted when the commission unanimously voted to order transformers when we had equivalent replacements already in stock since the upgrade. - 15 Sep. 2009
Total Taxpayer Dollars Wasted:

LWM Menu

· Home
· Advertising
· Authors and Articles
· AvantGo
· Downloads
· Feedback
· Forums
· Groups
· HTML Newsletter
· Journal
· Recommend Us
· Search
· Statistics
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links

Who's Online

There are currently, 21 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are an Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Site Info

Your IP:

Welcome, Anonymous
· Secure Login/Registration
· Forgot Password?
Server Date/Time
27 November 2021 18:38:29 EST

  PLAN C FOR THE BEACH by William Coakley
Posted on Saturday, June 30, 2007 @ 07:28:40 EST by William_Coakley

Lake Worth
Broad perspective

It is my conclusion that the city unnecessarily constrained the parameters for beach improvement. This led to the misassumption that a building couldn’t be constructed or reconstructed where it is now. The fact that a plan for reconstructing or building at the present Casino site was never seriously presented to the public; forced planners to reconfigure the site and its components in an environmentally unfriendly and wasteful way.

Efforts to form a consensus on what new plans would gain public support were doomed from the beginning. Confused by the variety of plans submitted by the public and without a systematic approach to arrive at a consensus from the greater public… the process failed. New plans and revisions of plans simply complicated matters while no time was spent looking at the obvious… that the current site configuration is the best AND no one has ever complained about it. No one ever complained about the convenient beach front parking; no one complained about the danger to children as the Greater Bay people contend; and no one complained about the level and character of the commercial activity on the site and the fact that it’s located in such a way as to offer public choice as to whether or not they want to engage the commercial activity. These are choices that commercial centric plans, such as the Greater Bay plan… cannot provide.

Many noble steps have been taken by individuals and business owners in an effort to help the city. A Citizen Beach Committee was established but it had little to do with citizens and more to do with the desires and preferences of a few active members who convinced themselves that the existing building site was not to be considered. Efforts to consolidate a greater public consensus were either non existent or were attempted in a disorganized, uncoordinated and ineffective manner. The extent of committee’s being out of touch with the public was confirmed when they asserted that the public would fund their project and in a referendum, the public overwhelmingly voted it down.

In the end, all of the plans which reconfigured the site including the Greater Bay plan, had erroneously concluded that the existing building site was unacceptable and hence, all of these plans failed to carefully examine the obvious solution of keeping the Casino site where it is and where no one has ever complained about it except for the poor condition political leaders have left it in.

There were logistical issues which were never adequately addressed which would have made plan “C” attractive. Plan “C” is far less costly, would restore the original Casino in its original position and to its proper proportion (not double it’s height with the same footprint)… it would keep more green space on the dune as it is now, would maintain the same convenient beach front parking, and has the distinct advantage over all other proposals and plans in that no one has ever complained about the present site configuration. Why change something that has endured the test of time for public approval?


PLAN C FOR THE BEACH by William Coakley | Login/Create an Account | 4 comments | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.


No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register



Re: PLAN C FOR THE BEACH by William Coakley (Score: 1)
by lorettasharpe on Tuesday, August 07, 2007 @ 13:04:30 EST
(User Info | Send a Message)

I was on the original "beach committee" there was much
discussion on building on the existing site. However the
committee and the public comment quickly pointed out
that closing down the existing businesses was not the way to go.



Re: PLAN C FOR THE BEACH by William Coakley (Score: 1)
by drm184 on Friday, August 31, 2007 @ 17:11:04 EST
(User Info | Send a Message)

Had you done your homework, you would have found out why the existing site could not be saved.
Back in 2000, the beach steering committee hired an engineer to do a structural building survey. They clearly found that structurally, the building is a write off because any fixes done now is only a bandaid because the structural damage goes to the core of the building. A fix today only postpones futher damage. They refered to this building as a money pit for repairs. It was found that parts of the original concrete in this building was mixed with sea water. Now what do you think seawater does to the steel rebar inside the concrete. All of this info was made public. Also, in Oct., Nov. and Dec. of 1999 I had a booth at Evenings on the Avenue. At this booth I offered suggestions on beach renovations but more importantly, I conducted a sidewalk survey of Lake Worth Residents about what they wanted at the beach. I was amazed to find that more than 80% stated that they wanted nothing to happen to John G and the other tennants. To tear down or remodel the Casino building would mean that they all get thrown into the street. Did you ever think of that? Doug McIntee


Related Links

· More about Lake Worth
· News by William_Coakley

Most read story about Lake Worth:
Of Rats and Roaches


Article Rating

Average Score: 3.71
Votes: 7

To rate this article please Login first



 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


The comments are property of their posters, all the rest is editorial © 2007 by William Coakley and unauthorized use is prohibited by law. Anybody who uses, copies or distributes this material in any manner, for commercial or personal purposes, without written permission, would be committing an infringement of copyright.
You can syndicate our news using the file backend.php or ultramode.txt

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2004 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
Page Generation: 0.08 Seconds