The Peary Court Referendum: ‘It is Impossible to Reach Good Conclusions with Bad Information’
by Commissioner Margaret Romero……..
I will vote “NO” on both referendums concerning Peary Court. I am not convinced there is a good solid business case for such a purchase. I do not find such a purchase in the best interests of our community as a whole. Over 200 financial institutions were made aware of our request for financing of the property, only 1 responded. That response was a conditional response which did not meet the specified requirements. That alone indicates a reason to question this deal even more closely.
Many things are still not specified. “It is impossible to reach good conclusions with bad information … We’re all entitled to our own opinions, but none of us can afford to be wrong in our facts.” (a quote by former broadcast journalist Mort Crim)
At a recent City Commission meeting, I asked a representative of the current owners where the 48 additional units were to be placed because it is my understanding that current zoning does not accommodate 48 units on the 2.2 acres being talked about. I did not get an answer. At Commissioner Payne’s community meeting on February 16th, a chart presented by Manuel Castillo, showed:
Acquisition Proposed: City to purchase existing 157 units, the building rights for 3 additional units and the land for the 160 units; and the remaining land will be deed restricted as affordable workforce housing in perpetuity at closing. The deed restrictions would be as a result of the sales agreement and not as a result of a planning process that is limited to 50 year terms.
It appears that the current owners will be keeping more than 2.2 acres. It seems the details of where to put the 48 units is not yet finalized, nor just how much land they will retain, and a host of other questions related to the site itself.
CLICK HERE ::::::::::>>>>>> Attached is a file with three sections.
Each section contains my comments in blue on the various parts of the following documents:
- The actual wording of the referendums
- “Vote Yes for Worker Housing” Q & A (a PAC document) distributed at District IV Meeting, February 16, 2016
- “The Worker Housing Referenda: Get The Facts” (a PAC document) distributed at District IV Meeting, February 16, 2016
[optin-cat id=”26188″]
Is Commissioner Romero the ONLY commissioner that “gets it?” Thank heavens for her!!
I have disagreed with Romero in the past because of her unwavering support of KWPD but in my opinion she is the ONLY one who “gets it”,
Sadly it appears Margaret may be the only commissioner who has considered all the variables then asked these tough questions – and concluded this is a scary, dangerous deal for the city and taxpayers with the little and detail lacking info the voters and citizens have been given.
But here is a question that was asked of me – that I never thought of. Maybe it is a legal requirement I do not understand, but WHY is the city trying to obtain a mortgage AND go for a bond issuance in the second referendum item:
“Shall City of Key West issue not exceeding $55,000,000 revenue bonds,…… secured by and payable solely from a mortgage lien……”
Do I understand the city would have to issue bonds to pay for the mortgage? What? If the MORTGAGE is to be payable solely from RENTS….then where does the BOND issuance come into the picture?
AND if you issue BONDS why do you need a MORTGAGE?
AND a last question: HOW could this ‘deal’ afford to pay INTEREST on a MORTGAGE….AND….INTEREST on BONDS that would be issued?
Can someone explain please?
WAY TOO MANY QUESTIONS….VOTE NO on Peary Court!
Everything explained…Yes! great answers
I looked in to Management cost and seems like possible problems with high fees and no sign of completion bonus on a yearly schedule. Also the add-on of employees at the need of management at the discretion of manager is a well known ploy to drain money from the city income or the pay off.
What about a 15 year pay OFF? —Just vote “NO” to Both, the banks did!
Thank you so much, you are the best!
Another unanswered question, since CURRENT tenants will be given preference and only FUTURE tenants will be subject to income criteria… How many current tenants exceed the affordability guidelines? In the future, if a resident’s income increases over the affordability limits, will the unit become available?
The following is quoted from document produced by the pro-purchase PAC:
Application will be open to all local workers, however preference will be given to those who live there now. In the future any tenant will have to meet the city income
guidelines.
Thank you, Margaret, for your help. Another question — why does the Key West Housing Authority get to manage the property? There should be a competitive bidding process for the property management. Anyone who thinks the rental rate is going to cover the loan has never purchased a rental property. They say there is no mold. A friend of mine is moving out soon because of the mold in his apartment.