4 letters: Union Church, the airport, speeding on Granada and water taxis

0


More about the story

Dear editor:

With regard to the airport, one of the commissioners stated that the three property owners had been invited to conduct their own assessments. That is true, however; the story has even more to offer.

The FAA had a Zoom meeting with the city. The notes from that meeting contained the following:

  • The Uniform Act applies to this land acquisition.
  • The FAA strongly recommends that the city keep a law firm familiar with this law.
  • The city did not obey the Uniform Act, it was subject to its own city rules.

The offer said that we could “obtain an expert opinion at our own expense in order to produce a third-party expert opinion. If we choose this option, the city may take into account the average of the two closest expert opinions according to the city regulations.” When our attorney inquired about what would happen if our ratings were significantly higher, the city stated that it “most likely would not be entertaining.”

The two ratings showed a difference of 18.65%. That is a major difference. After I was told that an estimate would cost between $ 2,500 and $ 5,000, it seemed pointless.

The Uniform Act enables negotiation and helps people displaced from their homes with relocation or relocation costs.

The landowners knew nothing of easements and had not responded to them. In the environmental report signed in March 2018, however, the city stated that it had met with the three property owners and that they were open to easements. We knew nothing of an easement until January 2019 when we received a certified “Notice to the Owner”.

When we received an “offer to the owner”, the city mentioned that an RPZ zone (crash zone) would be set up on our property.

The reason for hiring a reputable domain attorney is because not only did five attorneys declare that the city had taken the first two steps into a stellar domain right, but we also found out things the city didn’t tell us, such as the Example of wanting to and becoming an airport executive over 622 jet operations; and studying the feasibility of upgrading the critical design aircraft to C-II to accommodate larger business aircraft with faster approach speeds and requiring more fuel.

Does the city realize that for larger jets they need a 1700-foot RPN instead of the minimum 1,000-foot RPN? Also, we later found out that there were four trees west of their RPZ servitude, and the city said they could just take those trees away for free because of Chapter 333. We were not informed – we had to research everything.

Karin Augat

Ormond Beach

Editor’s Note: The City of Ormond Beach was given an opportunity to comment.

City: Ormond Beach Airport has been an active airfield in the community since 1943 as a naval training facility and as a general aviation airport since 1959. All planned improvements at the airport are part of the Airport Master Plan. All planned improvements at the airport are advertised according to federal and state protocols, which also include advertisements in the newspaper. Public meetings to upgrade the runway were held on the following dates: April 28, 2015, August 24, 2015, January 2, 2018 and March 23, 2018.

The runway extension project has never been a matter of pre-eminence, just a voluntary acquisition. The landowners urged the city to fully consider buying the land. The city agreed to consider purchasing the land as a voluntary purchase. The city carried out two independent, certified appraisals of the properties. The property owners did not agree with the estimated values ​​and did not want to justify their asking price with a certified appraisal.

The city’s planned airport improvement projects will not allow the airport to be used by airplanes larger than those that can currently use the airport.

It is not too late

Dear editor:

First off, thank you, Mayor Partington, for calling the special session, and thank you to Mayor and Commissioner Selby for advocating the very reasonable motion to suspend the demolition of the Union Church in order to fully cover all of the options available for church property to sound out.

I think most people would agree that the demolition delay argument is compelling and we cannot understand why it is rejected. The action brought by Commissioners Kent, Persis and Littleton against such a delay has been weak, given the possibility that the building is somewhat salvageable. Rodents and asbestos would have to be removed, regardless of whether the building was demolished or preserved.

Finally, on financial value, profitability and “money”, as Commissioner Selby stressed, how can this be ascertained without being able to fully examine all the options? For example, the church can qualify for grants. Furthermore, it doesn’t make sense to deny potential investors – like Salty Church – the opportunity to further consider the purchase option.

Commissioner Littleton: What is your asking price?

People are demanding more time. We know that it is not too late for Commissioners Kent, Persis or Littleton to change their minds (and their voices), which may not be easy, but it is right.

Ken and Julie Sipes

Ormond Beach

Editor’s Note: This letter was originally addressed and submitted to the Ormond Beach City Commission.

Granada Boulevard shouldn’t be a highway, even if it is legally one

Dear editor:

One number on a sign can lead to many confused priorities. Ormond Beach’s main drag, Granada Boulevard, is part of State Road 40, a state road that runs from Ormond Beach to Dunnillon through countless cities such as Ormond Beach. Its designation as Autobahn may cause confusion about its purpose, but let’s be clear: Rhese a few blocks, from US 1 to A1A, must be a street, not a street or a stroad (A Stroad is a street / street hybrid. It is that Transportation Alternatives Futon Where a futon is a piece of furniture that doubles as an uncomfortable couch and bed, a stroad is not a great road or road).

In the city center, cars should move slowly and carefully, and creating a great travel destination should be a priority when planning. There is a very direct conflict between safety and speed. Driving 35 km / h is too fast.

We need to redesign the pavement to slow down traffic and signs alone will not be enough. If motorists driving through our city center (with Granada as a thoroughfare) extend their journey by a minute or two, so be it. It’s a minute or two. There are other routes that lead to the beach that would take much longer.

Bill Partington II

Ormond Beach

Editor’s note: Bill Partington II is the father of the mayor and recently completed the speed control and speed management course of the Center for Urban Transportation Research’s FDOT Design Manual and Applications Training.

Water taxi madness, bait and switches?

Dear editor:

I once had a boss who was an old country boy and, like most of his kind, long used common sense. When faced with dubious information, he would say, “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.”

The Cross Florida Barge Canal was a tricky business proposal to dig the Withlacoochee and Ocklawaha Rivers for an inland shipping canal. One thing that helped overcome this has been called “cost-benefit analysis”. Basically, is the price worth what you get? It takes 30 seconds to travel 1500 feet across the Granada Bridge by car, rain or shine. With the water taxi you are exposed to the weather, have to load and unload and still have to walk in blocks. Water taxi users would take away valuable public parking spaces from park users.

Who buys / maintains / stores the boat, sits at the dock all day and pays the operating costs?

A $ 50,000 design, high cost of the dock, additional cost to design and build an eastside dock for disembarkation in Fortunato Park would be absurd. Are you using our tax dollars to compete with private taxis and Uber?

Let’s talk about baits and switches. Propose something, do something else. There are enough docks in the parks of Granada, especially in Cassen Park. The only logical place left is, as you guessed it, next to the developers’ private underwater lot next to the park, which gives owners free publicly funded jetty and park access.

Details for the nearly a million dollar bait house are not clear, but are said to include a kitchen for food preparation and an office. The current location of the bait shop is said to be “unsafe” and too close to the water.

Photo courtesy of JR Miller

Are we going to have a pavilion built there that eliminates the best view of the river and the best fishing spot on the par? Also included is another new pavilion in an undisclosed location. What else is hidden in this nearly million dollar prize?

We were told that the breakwater for the floating dock would be an innovative, environmentally and aesthetically pleasing oyster bar with mangrove islands. You see what we have. The multi-million dollar floating dock project and rock breakwater, space for 8-10 boats ($ 150,000 each) and a concrete eyesore. The constant pressure for more berths makes it seem that the city is planning to build a marina in stages. This picture is a reference. When asked about the sign, the city took it off the next day.

Wake up boaters, fishermen, park users, talk! Not commercializing our river parks.

JR Miller

Ormond Beach


Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.