Letter To Editor /I Voted No

By Margaret Romero

I voted “NO” on both referendums concerning Peary Court.  I am not convinced there is a good solid business case. 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 the request for financing of the property, only 1 responded. That response did not meet the specified requirements. This 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 that was talked about.   I did not get an answer.

The details of where to put the 48 units is not yet finalized, nor where and how much land the current owners will actually retain, and a host of other questions related to the site itself. Who will be responsible for the one (1) water meter that feeds the entire development? Who will maintain the pipes, and be responsible for all water leaks past that one meter?

Keys Energy does not own the lights in the development, the buyer will be responsible for their upkeep, repair, and replacement – as well as installing meters to monitor usage. Keys Energy is not responsible for the low voltage underground wires that take electricity to the units from the transformer boxes. The buyer is responsible to have those wires inspected, repaired, and upgraded as needed.

Who will own and maintain the roads? Who will manage the proposed acquisition and at what cost? (The Key West Housing Authority is not a part of the City of Key West – it is separate.)

The buildings proposed for acquisition are about 20 years old.  Just what repairs and replacements are needed or anticipated? At what cost?  What about on-going maintenance?  How many people will need to be hired to do that?

While the rents are supposed to cover the “mortgage” – what happens if the rents don’t cover all the other costs associated with the project? Will the taxpayers shell out money to pay the bills where only a few will benefit?

Now there is talk that another 20 – 40 units could be added to the site if there were zoning changes made. (Units added by whom? the City, the current owners, another entity?) Where and at what cost to the City?  (on City land or current owner retained land?)  Just what is being talked about amongst the people involved?  The details and specifics are still not available.  Can one discern facts from marketing hype?

Remember the referendum to negotiate for the White St. school property?  It was marketed that it would be about $6.5 million, save money over the Angela St. location and save an historic building. The costs are closer to $18 million, only the walls remain of the building, and there were MANY THINGS UNSPECIFIED at the time of the THAT referendum.

Something else to ponder  – should the City even be in the business of providing housing?

[livemarket market_name="KONK Life LiveMarket" limit=3 category=“” show_signup=0 show_more=0]