I don't disagree with the premise that that expanding hotels would be the only way to revive Fort Myers Beach. My question is: if this type of Hotel was so important why was it not standing in that spot before. And why not rebuild Fort Myers Beach with the types of hotels and spaces it already had, while preserving the skyline for the community behind it that has also been there for Generations. Margaritaville would suffer irreparable damage if it's Skyline is blocked off just because someone wants to build hotels oversized for the code that is in existence at this point in time.
In other words this is just another viewpoint and alternative viewpoints are what build a good discussion on any topic. I like your space here and I don't disagree with you on rebuilding the beach. I just believe there might be a better way to do it and everyone could benefit, not just this guy asking for a variance to build a hotel that will destroy the feel of an entire town by destroying it's view of the waterfront.
On another topic: I wish to thank you for actively being there to remove the Gaza scammers from your spaces. I asked this of a couple of other spaces and was totally ignored and nothing ever happened. I had to unfollow spaces that I really liked some of the info on because I spent more time doing the job they should have been doing trying to eliminate the scammers then what they would spend themselves. You are proactive and care about your space and I appreciate that and will stay here as long as I am welcome.
I think that the issue of the view comes with the risks inherent to owning and developing real property.
I'll tell you a story.
In my past life, I heard a case in Brooklyn where a couple bought a property and closed in the New York winter. They were across from a horse stable (yes, they still have them in New York City).
Come the summertime, the couple started noticing an assaulting smell originating from their neighbors. It was horse manure.
The stable owner said that was the way it was, and he couldn't do anything about it.
The new owners sued for "nuisance" because of the smell and the effect it was having on their land.
When it got to court, it got really funny. I don't want to name drop, but the great Frank Seddio was the lawyer for the stable. Seddio questioned the wife.
"So when you bought the place, did you notice the brown animals across the street?" he asked.
"You mean the horses?" the wife asked.
"Yes. The horses?" Seddio asked.
"Of course I did. That was part of the appeal of the property. The horses are so beautiful, and the owner is committed to keeping the property as a stable," she said.
"Do horses go to the bathroom?" Seddio asked.
"Of course they do," she replied.
"And they were going to the bathroom back in December when you bought?" he asked.
"Of course," the wife answered.
"So what made you think they would stop going to the bathroom in the summer?"
The wife was speechless.
The case was, at that moment, for all intents and purposes, over. The judge ruled in the stable owner's favor.
I bring up the colorful story only because the same way horses poop, developers build.
If TT or MV are worried about the view, it is part of their inherent risk in owning land. They are developers, so they should get no "legal" protections based on market risk and foreseeable changes in conditions.
And a Town Ordinance or Code is nothing that can be relied upon as a "property right," particularly where there is a variance provision, particularly where it can be changed, and particularly where the Town is still rebuilding from an Act of God.
Sorry for any misspelled words. I have no clue why I use spell check to fix things when it doesn't. And the top that off at least here in the app there is no way to edit a comment. That should be fixed.
Nine Feet PLUS 13 Feet is 22 Feet. Thaw 22 feet OVER code variance requested. It doesn't matter why anyone is contesting it. Personally I don't see the confusion here on why this might not be wanted by some people. There are no guaranteed approval for over code variances and any town in America.
Variances are given when they meet the best interests of all involved. If it destroys the view of an already established community and property then maybe the variance needs to be on the end of the project not the existing community. Maybe the developer should build a two-story without the 13 foot deck and ask for boundary variances to expand it on the property line a little more, or buy an adjacent property if one is available and expand the width instead of height. Or build the 2 story hotel and forget about putting the restaurant on site. I'm sure there are plenty of good eateries within a short walking distance, and it would give him more room for the guests to stay in.
I also don't really see the need for a rooftop deck. If he eliminated that perhaps he could get the 9 ft variance for the over height.
In the end it's all about one developer getting what he wants so he can make a profit. He doesn't care about a community that has been there for generations and what it will do to that community and its businesses when he blocks their view of the waterfront.
I know we all want to be on the side of the little guy and his business venture but sometimes the little guy isn't who you think he is. And PR campaign sure can paint him out to be whatever he wants you to see him as.
I don't care what he says about helping the community he wouldn't be there if it wasn't all about profit for him. If he was there for the community he would take whatever he could get on a building variance and be happy.
I think the question is what is a "Public Benefit" at this point in time.
It's a strong argument that INCREASED HOTEL CAPACITY is the most important Public Benefit.
The economic argument can be made that increased hotel capacity is the ONLY relevant factor towards a robust Hurricane Ian recovery on Fort Myers Beach.
PR is PR. You can dump on anyone for any reason at any time. Consider these headlines:
Oh and I like the comparison with The Radical Rabbi man.
I don't disagree with the premise that that expanding hotels would be the only way to revive Fort Myers Beach. My question is: if this type of Hotel was so important why was it not standing in that spot before. And why not rebuild Fort Myers Beach with the types of hotels and spaces it already had, while preserving the skyline for the community behind it that has also been there for Generations. Margaritaville would suffer irreparable damage if it's Skyline is blocked off just because someone wants to build hotels oversized for the code that is in existence at this point in time.
In other words this is just another viewpoint and alternative viewpoints are what build a good discussion on any topic. I like your space here and I don't disagree with you on rebuilding the beach. I just believe there might be a better way to do it and everyone could benefit, not just this guy asking for a variance to build a hotel that will destroy the feel of an entire town by destroying it's view of the waterfront.
On another topic: I wish to thank you for actively being there to remove the Gaza scammers from your spaces. I asked this of a couple of other spaces and was totally ignored and nothing ever happened. I had to unfollow spaces that I really liked some of the info on because I spent more time doing the job they should have been doing trying to eliminate the scammers then what they would spend themselves. You are proactive and care about your space and I appreciate that and will stay here as long as I am welcome.
I think that the issue of the view comes with the risks inherent to owning and developing real property.
I'll tell you a story.
In my past life, I heard a case in Brooklyn where a couple bought a property and closed in the New York winter. They were across from a horse stable (yes, they still have them in New York City).
Come the summertime, the couple started noticing an assaulting smell originating from their neighbors. It was horse manure.
The stable owner said that was the way it was, and he couldn't do anything about it.
The new owners sued for "nuisance" because of the smell and the effect it was having on their land.
When it got to court, it got really funny. I don't want to name drop, but the great Frank Seddio was the lawyer for the stable. Seddio questioned the wife.
"So when you bought the place, did you notice the brown animals across the street?" he asked.
"You mean the horses?" the wife asked.
"Yes. The horses?" Seddio asked.
"Of course I did. That was part of the appeal of the property. The horses are so beautiful, and the owner is committed to keeping the property as a stable," she said.
"Do horses go to the bathroom?" Seddio asked.
"Of course they do," she replied.
"And they were going to the bathroom back in December when you bought?" he asked.
"Of course," the wife answered.
"So what made you think they would stop going to the bathroom in the summer?"
The wife was speechless.
The case was, at that moment, for all intents and purposes, over. The judge ruled in the stable owner's favor.
I bring up the colorful story only because the same way horses poop, developers build.
If TT or MV are worried about the view, it is part of their inherent risk in owning land. They are developers, so they should get no "legal" protections based on market risk and foreseeable changes in conditions.
And a Town Ordinance or Code is nothing that can be relied upon as a "property right," particularly where there is a variance provision, particularly where it can be changed, and particularly where the Town is still rebuilding from an Act of God.
Sorry for any misspelled words. I have no clue why I use spell check to fix things when it doesn't. And the top that off at least here in the app there is no way to edit a comment. That should be fixed.
No worries. Your points came across well.
Nine Feet PLUS 13 Feet is 22 Feet. Thaw 22 feet OVER code variance requested. It doesn't matter why anyone is contesting it. Personally I don't see the confusion here on why this might not be wanted by some people. There are no guaranteed approval for over code variances and any town in America.
Variances are given when they meet the best interests of all involved. If it destroys the view of an already established community and property then maybe the variance needs to be on the end of the project not the existing community. Maybe the developer should build a two-story without the 13 foot deck and ask for boundary variances to expand it on the property line a little more, or buy an adjacent property if one is available and expand the width instead of height. Or build the 2 story hotel and forget about putting the restaurant on site. I'm sure there are plenty of good eateries within a short walking distance, and it would give him more room for the guests to stay in.
I also don't really see the need for a rooftop deck. If he eliminated that perhaps he could get the 9 ft variance for the over height.
In the end it's all about one developer getting what he wants so he can make a profit. He doesn't care about a community that has been there for generations and what it will do to that community and its businesses when he blocks their view of the waterfront.
I know we all want to be on the side of the little guy and his business venture but sometimes the little guy isn't who you think he is. And PR campaign sure can paint him out to be whatever he wants you to see him as.
I don't care what he says about helping the community he wouldn't be there if it wasn't all about profit for him. If he was there for the community he would take whatever he could get on a building variance and be happy.
I think the question is what is a "Public Benefit" at this point in time.
It's a strong argument that INCREASED HOTEL CAPACITY is the most important Public Benefit.
The economic argument can be made that increased hotel capacity is the ONLY relevant factor towards a robust Hurricane Ian recovery on Fort Myers Beach.
PR is PR. You can dump on anyone for any reason at any time. Consider these headlines:
"Radical Leftist Rabbi Crucified"
"He is Risen"