Don’t give away needed parkland and open space

The city’s present supply of recreational and environmental open

space land is now under assault by three separate projects. Two are

worthy uses of small amounts of open space land -- the St. Mark’s

Church and senior housing in Bayview Landing. We support them.

However, the line has to be drawn and quickly to protect the

remainder of our dwindling supply. The proposed Regent Hotel takes

our precious recreational and environmental open space land for a

project that, for the reasons cited below, is questionable. For

example, in a recent Community Commentary in the Pilot, Steven

Sutherland classifies the area of the hotel as “one of the most

run-down parts of the city. It is filled with bars, tattoo parlors,

body piercing shops and rental units.”

Yet Sutherland would have us believe that he can build a “five

star” hotel that will attract affluent customers that will provide

high revenues to the city. That implies they will prefer the tattoo

parlors and body piercing shop access over the amenities of the many

fine hotels in the city that are in prime, not run allegedly down

neighborhoods. I don’t believe that.

The city previously preached a revenue bonanza by taking away open

space land for the Fletcher Jones Dealership. While it does provide

substantial revenue, the city’s anticipated revenues were reduced

because most cars are bought on lease, and Mercedes finances their

cars in New Jersey. So caution should be exercised when reviewing any

developer’s revenue claims.

Convincing proof that caution is needed is contained in the City

Council minutes of March 11, agenda item No. 21. At that meeting,

both Sutherland and I testified for the record. However, his recent

Community Commentary differs in several important respects from the

official minutes of the meeting. His article stated that Greenlight

had not taken a position on the Regent Resort. The official minutes

provide evidence that Greenlight then opposed the Regent Plan because

it would take away precious recreational and open space land.

Sutherland’s article then went on to say: “Residents should not be

surprised if Greenlight finds some reason to oppose the resort. This

future projection flies in the face of my testimony in his presence

on March 8 that we opposed this wanton taking of our recreational and

open space land.

Sutherland further stated “a vote of the residents will take place

in November of 2004, not because of Greenlight, but because the

leaders of this city agreed that residents should decide a project of

this importance.” However in my testimony on March 11, I pointed out we believe that the project would require a Greenlight vote. This is

because its square footage exceeds the Greenlight law’s limits.

The use of this initiative process instead of the “Greenlight”

City Charter law lets the City Council off the hook by bypassing a

public vote by them. How many of them would have dared to vote

against the wishes of the majority of the residents? Because of this

approach, we may never know. However, if the lawful process is

further disregarded, there are still judges who can decide the

legality of bypassing the Greenlight law.

Sutherland also takes Greenlight’s position on desirable

development types out of context. For example, one of the principal

reasons we previously opposed the Dunes Hotel and now the Regent

Hotel was that it would occupy a bay-front position. We think we can

and should add hotels inshore without turning the city into another

Miami Beach. His out-of-context statement of our position did not

mention that.

Given this number of documented misstatements in Sutherland’s

column, I personally will question all the statistics and claims he

is throwing at us. I suggest you do the same.

Our recreational and environmental open space and bay-front land

is too precious to waste on a questionable venture. That is why

Greenlight opposes the Regent Hotel.

* PHIL ARST is spokesman for the Greenlight Steering Committee.