Pier 66 development proposal needs more study and more detail

For years, there has been a predictable pattern in Fort Lauderdale. Developers work closely and quietly with commissioners and city staff, carefully crafting plans for massive overbuilding, then spring them on an unsuspecting public, with a demand for immediate action. The public, taken by surprise, mobilizes to express its shock and anger. The public gets tossed a bone or two in the form of small concessions off extreme plans, but loses in the end.

That pattern is poised to repeat itself with the Pier 66 proposal scheduled for its first hearing Tuesday. Except this time, a new commission is in place, with three members who ran on platforms promoting responsible growth and listening to the public. There is an old saying that elections have consequences, but the test comes Tuesday.

We urge the city commission to reject Tavistock Development’s proposal because it asks too much and leaves too many questions unanswered.

For the sheer size alone, the agreement should not be approved. The number of allowable units there was approved in 2008 after a bitter fight, but the owners have a right to build what was approved. But they are requesting more than double the number of units and the allowable retail space. They also want to unify Pier 66 on the north with The Sails on the south to have no restrictions on where they place the density, no matter the serious consequences for traffic and neighborhood compatibility.

The catalyst for the new commission’s mandate to slow unbridled development was Bahia Mar. Yet Tavistock wants even more units and greater density than Bahia Mar, at a more-sensitive traffic choke point on the barrier island.

The owners say their request is only a mathematical calculation and they would never build so many units — a tacit admission that even they know they’re asking for too much. But history shows that whenever there is a mismatch between a developer’s stated intentions and their building rights, building rights win every time.

In December 2015, the Sun Sentinel published an editorial — Why the Rush on Bahia Mar? — which could be republished almost word for word today, with only the names changed. Then, the commission was being asked to approve a 50-year lease extension with very little information. Today, the commission is being asked to approve a 20-year agreement with even less information.

Four critical questions must be answered before the process can proceed.

First, what do the developers intend to build? The say they haven’t decided what to do with the two properties they just paid $189 million for. Previously, the Sun Sentinel said, no site plan, no discussion. The same idea applies today.

Second, what does the city get in return? It is natural for developers to seek the best combination of risk and reward. But in this case, the public takes the risk and they get the reward. The developers’ risk is minimal because they lock in today’s zoning, unless it changes in their favor. They ask to unify the properties so they can move building densities around or perhaps subdivide it in the future. They want the city to guarantee adequate infrastructure for the next 20 years, when the city can’t guarantee adequate infrastructure for the next 20 minutes. They want to take control of taxpayerowned property under the 17th Street bridge, and reserve the right to restrict public access as they see fit.

Third, how much analysis has been done on Chapter 163 Development Agreements and Community Development Districts? The city has never considered a Chapter 163 agreement. It has never faced a decision on a self-taxing Community Development District. Perhaps they’re benign, but how do we know? Has the city auditor or outside counsel been asked to analyze the risks?

Finally, what happened to the instructions given city staff by the former and current mayors to remove flex units from the barrier island? And how did these properties get added to the map just before the final vote?

In the end, the Pier 66 properties will be redeveloped, as they should be. My neighbors and I favor something being built there that adds credit to Fort Lauderdale, but doesn’t unduly burden the neighborhood. The only way to ensure that is to slow down, take time and discuss something more reasonable for all concerned.

The developer’s representatives say they are different from Bahia Mar, but so far they are using the same playbook. They insist the owner of their family-owned business wants to leave a legacy.

Will it be a legacy of trust, transparency and cooperation? Or will history repeat itself?