Monday, October 23, 2017

CRA Control of Bruce Beach

The CRA Administrator sent the following email to Council Member Myers:


From: Helen Gibson
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 10:33 AM
To: Sherri Myers
Cc: Victoria D’Angelo
Subject: RE: Please give me a call

Good Morning, Board Member Myers. The CRA has never been a party to the Fish Hatchery lease. The property was purchased by the City of Pensacola in 1974, and no CRA funds were ever allocated to it. The CRA statutes do not apply.

M. Helen Gibson, AICP
CRA Administrator

HOLD THE PHONE HELEN!

FORTIS COUNCIL FILES 01/10/2002 Over the past two years, the CRA Staff coordinated several planning efforts that identified additional capital projects proposed to be constructed in the next three to five years to continue the CRA's partnership approach to revitalization within the Urban Core Community Redevelopment Area:
    • Palafox Pier Plaza
    • Sidewalk Partnership Fund
    • Reconstruction of Baylen Street Walkway
    • Expanded Commercial Facade Grant Program
    • Bruce Beach Site Improvements
    • Main Street Sewage Treatment Plant Relocation Evaluation


















2 comments:

Anonymous said...


.....and "3 million illegal immigrants voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016." We are living in an age when some people in our government will say anything, no matter how outrageous, to further the lies that they are spewing. In this case, Helen Gibson is saying whatever she has to say to keep her job. There can be no doubt that she was directed to send this email by Ashton Hayward and/or Eric Olsen.

Helen Gibson is correct when she states "The CRA has never been a party to the Fish Hatchery lease." The real problem here, Helen, is that the CRA SHOULD have been a party to the Fish Hatchery lease! This is another classic example of Hayward circumventing the law, and our City Council, to do whatever he wants to do. As usual, out City Council was either cowering in the corner or ignorant of the entire matter. Why do we even have a City Council?

Helen Gibson gets into deep fish do-do, however, when she puts on her hat as an illegal attorney and states "The CRA statutes do not apply." Really? Helen's pronouncement is correct only in Hayward World where there are no statues, laws, or rules that he can't break anytime he feels like it.

Anonymous said...

163.380 Disposal of property in community redevelopment area

"(1) Any county, municipality, or community redevelopment agency may sell, lease, dispose of, or otherwise transfer real property or any interest therein acquired by it for community redevelopment in a community redevelopment area to any private person, or may retain such property for public use, and may enter into contracts with respect thereto for residential, recreational, commercial, industrial, educational, or other uses, in accordance with the community redevelopment plan, subject to such covenants, conditions, and restrictions, including covenants running with the land, as it deems necessary or desirable to assist in preventing the development or spread of future slums or blighted areas or to otherwise carry out the purposes of this part. ......

..(2) Such real property or interest shall be sold, leased, otherwise transferred, or retained at a value determined to be in the public interest for uses in accordance with the community redevelopment plan and in accordance with such reasonable disposal procedures as any county, municipality, or community redevelopment agency may prescribe. In determining the value of real property as being in the public interest for uses in accordance with the community redevelopment plan, the county, municipality, or community redevelopment agency shall take into account and give consideration to the long-term benefits to be achieved by the county, municipality, or community redevelopment agency resulting from incurring short-term losses or costs in the disposal of such real property; the uses provided in such plan; the restrictions upon, and the covenants, conditions, and obligations assumed by, the purchaser or lessee or by the county, municipality, or community redevelopment agency retaining the property; and the objectives of such plan for the prevention of the recurrence of slum or blighted areas. In the event the value of such real property being disposed of is for less than the fair value, such disposition shall require the approval of the governing body, which approval may only be given following a duly noticed public hearing......

..(3)(a) Prior to disposition of any real property or interest therein in a community redevelopment area, any county, municipality, or community redevelopment agency shall give public notice of such disposition by publication in a newspaper having a general circulation in the community, at least 30 days prior to the execution of any contract to sell, lease, or otherwise transfer real property and, prior to the delivery of any instrument of conveyance with respect thereto under the provisions of this section, invite proposals from, and make all pertinent information available to, private redevelopers or any persons interested in undertaking to redevelop or rehabilitate a community redevelopment area or any part thereof..."

Simple translation, if it was purchased by ANY governmental entity (including the county or city) for redevelopment and it sits in a CRA, the use (even if sold) must comply with the CRA Plan, and it has to be advertised to private redevelopers. And if sold, there should be stipulations/restrictions that run with the land (not owner) to protect that 'redevelopment use'.