This constant changing of the project proves that it will NEVER be what was sold to and promised to the residents of Temple Terrace.It is time for a fact check to see who has profited from this project . Apartments will bring more crime and and more speeding cars on Bullard, 75% traffic on Bullard exceeds the 30 MPH .

I think they should combine the 55+ empty nesters and the USF faculty target they currently have. Floor plans needs to be larger, wall construction needs to be conc blk and not wood stud. Back open parking area needs covered parking and/or garages.

"Barry Lazarus, chief executive officer of Inland Atlantic Development Corporation, said developers would be willing to restrict the units so that there would never be Section 8 housing there."

I would of like to have been there and question this statement. From what I know, any attempt to restrict a property in this fashion would be housing discrimination under Federal Law under the Fair Housing Act.

My knowledge of such law only goes as far a real estate class however. Perhaps someone well versed can answer this question in accurate detail.

Also, by not using block or poured concrete, the structure is going to be very expensive to insure under our present insurance crisis, greatly increasing costs to the owner and occupiers. Down the road, there is a chance the property could become uninsurable at any cost.

Temple Terrace is already saturated with rental units. This is one of the problems with the downtown area. Owner occupied housing means more commitment to the community and a higher tax base. This new plan, especially the fence makes the development very unattractive to walkers and puts the retail area further away from the owner occupied houses and guarantees businesses will cater to the current population utilizing that shopping center. Just what we need, more check cashing outlets and pawn shops. One need only look at the apartments that are currently behind the development. Couches and exercise equipment on balconies and porches should be a code violation. We have tried our best to frequent the businesses in this end of town in hopes that more shoppers would alleviate the need for security guards that currently greet shoppers. Temple Terrace has a BIG problem and our city council needs to really put some thought into where we go next with this.

I think JW is correct: you cannot restrict housing options; that would be a violation of Federal Law. This project has strayed so far from its original design that it's starting to look like a recreation of the "failed retail concept" (anyone remember that presentation to all of us?) that was already there. Putting a fenced, rental residential block between the new development and a substantial portion of the city's population will guarantee that the retail businesses fail. The intent was to make it pedestrian friendly and accessible, not hidden behind an apartment complex. And who is going to rent a "luxury" apartment that overlooks some pretty shabby rental housing already behind the development site or what still amounts to strip development on the west side of 56th street and the north side of Bullard/Busch. I applaud the council members who voted against the proposal and encourage those who voted for a delay to give this some very serious thought.

I would like to apologize to Mr. Govin. I did not vote for him in the last election. I will not make that mistake again. Thank you and Mr. Pogorilich for speaking out on our behalf. We have enough rental units in Temple Terrace.

From TBBJ:

"Temple Terrace gets testy with downtown developers"

http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/news/2012/02/17/temple-terrace-gets-testy-with.html?ed=2012-02-17&s=article_du&ana=e_du_pub

The residents of Temple Terrace really showed up last night! Rental units were never part of our vision and they weren't presented to us (the voters) when we decided to support this endeavor. Personally I think the +55 idea was a GREAT idea, as did many others in attendance.
Thank you to Dave Pogorolich and Ron Govin for listening to their constituents and supporting US - not the Vlass group or their own special interests - at last night's meeting.

I started replying to this and had too much to say. So I am writing about it in my Patch blog. it will be there within the hour Editor Ashley!

I have avoided selling my house and even remodeled because of the promise of redevelopment and a pedestrian friendly shopping area. Building a wall around whatever is there is counter-productive. I personally do not like the idea of ANYTHING residential right there...we have enough. But, if it must be...then townhouses or condominiums would be best.

The next meeting will be behind closed doors without anyone's knowledge.
Apartments and fence will be passed....

I was told by a council member that their bigger issue is the 22 million debt the city has currently as a result of the downtown development, and that they may not have a choice in changing the Land Development Code so that the city can begin to recoup some monies. Was the builder NOT aware of our code at the contract signing? We have the current codes to protect the ideals of our community and I don't appreciate them being changed to appease a builder. Homeowners in this city better get loud in this matter because I have been given the impression on a few different occasions that this is likely to pass regardless of our wishes!

Karly is exactly right! We need thoughtful minds working on this situation. I only hope we aren't too late to turn this around! Call you elected officials and let your voice be heard.

No doomsdayer here, I am still confident that a good compromise proposal can be reached on the redevelopment multi-family. Keep sending your input to city council folks.

Grant, according to the last census. 53% of the households in Temple Terrace are rentals. We need some out of the box thinking to get this finished and functional in this down market. Rentals are a stop-gap measure...transient by their very nature. That doesn't build community. Something needs to be done to make that development a destination as well as a good place to live.

One more thing, you may not remember the Florida Colkege bridge where hush-hush, wink/wink deals were being made that almost resulted in an environmental disaster. It's not doomsday thinking to be VERY concerned that mistakes can be made when people fail to think about the long term consequences of thier decisions. I've lived in this area for my entire life. It wasn't that long ago that the apartment complexes south of the 56th street bridge were "luxury" rental apartments. Now look what we have.

Lucinda, yes, I knew that rental statistic, it is alarming and unhealthy for such small town. That's 53% of our population that don't have the vested interest in our community of home ownership!

Our city has a poor track record regarding rental multi-family, we have our 60s and 70s TT city council to thank for planting the seeds for today's problems. Most of TTs issues have been 40 years in the making, they did not crop up overnight.

I remember the FC bridge proposal too, I had just arrived back in town.
I wasn't referring to you re: doomsday

Its a cabal!! We are getting screwed! the developer has his own personal cheerleader in the mayor (see statue named "here's $22 million) and the residents are not being heard. It is not what's good for the town it is whats good for the developer. I quote AC/DC" Dirty deeds done dirt cheap".

How can a wood frame apartment of under 900 square feet with only one bedroom be considered an "upscale luxury apartment" by anyone's standards? This change in the vision of our downtorn redevelopment is alarming!! It would be better to leave the area vacant than to accept a Future Nightmare to replace the Dream we citizens had for our downtown. We don't need more rental apartments and increased crime in the heart of our city!!!!!!!! We need a Barnes and Noble store or a Michael's craft store and a Starbucks. We need a reason to frequent the area. Over 300 concerned citizens attened the Feb. 16th council meeting, and not one of them was an apartment dweller. Homeowners care about Temple Terrace.

We do not need any more apartments!!!!! This is not what we wanted for our Town Center. We need to get the retail going....we need stores and restaurants that will cater to our local citizens...we do not need to wait until apartments are built and then bring in retail to cater to the apartment dwellers. The citizens want the retail now!!!! We should wait awhile until the market inproves and there is a need for the condos.........I bet there are local realtors who could sell condos to residents who have lived here for a while and want to downsize. We cannot let the Council change the Development Code for the benefit of the developer and forget about the MANY citizens of Temple Terrace.
Carol Dell

Apparently, the word "renters" connotes transient and low income residents. As if being a homeowner in the last decade has been an indicator of stability and financial security. And why does the term "transient" have to imply inability to build community? When I went to college, the sense of community permeated every second of life on campus, yet the population turns over completely every 4 years. There are other forces besides real estate at work here.

<<@Grant Rimbey: I'm stunned to read your sentiments that renters are somehow less valuable members of the community. You are trying to bring multi-family housing to the re-development, but at the same time characterizing renters as people that don't give a crap about where they live...not a strong tactic! I lived as a renter in several neighborhoods in Atlanta and Savannah, and I, as well as other renters, actively participated. Even though I didn't always match the local demographic, in each place, I was fortunate that the neighbors welcomed me as a local anyway. Pride in the community was infectious because everyone felt connected to eachother, and very few homeowners or renters (short- or long-term) sat on the sidelines. I believe that is the type of community you (Grant) would very much like to see in Temple Terrace, but I can tell you that dividing community stakeholders into "renters" and "homeowners" is bad. >>

The residential component is critical. On-site residents add a steady buzz that will attract even more activity. Unfortunately we had to compromise the orginial vision, but I would hate to see us give up at this point. We can't get commercial on the ground floor, but let's integrate the residences as much as possible, and not isolate behind a wall. More connection is better, and let's build it to last. Wood-framed will degrade too quickly and we'll be stuck with the blight again.

Regarding filling the apartments...manipulating demographics is nasty business, but sadly necessary. This needs to be a place where every Temple Terrace resident can feel at home. Human nature works against us though. A person's tendency is to fill the place with people just like himself, or fill it with people different than himself and put a fence around it. Mixing things up as much as possible is a good way to go. Grouping like with like, its too easy to draw lines (or a fences) around different areas and pretend that they can be separated from the whole. An all-low-income option is bad of course, but an all-high-income isn't healthy either. I have seen successes with mixed-income. Different apartments have different grades of finishes, and rent levels are staggered, with a small number of units offered to qualifying low income residents, most units offered to middle income residents, and a few higher grade units are marketed to higher income residents.

Grant Rimbey has been a voice of reason throughout the TEN+ Year history of this "development". Grant's tongue would rot if he purposefully insulted anyone. His views on rental vs homeowners are on target. I rented for half my life before marrying my husband. I understand completely what you are saying Alec, but people like the two of us are exceptions to the rule. While there are many exceptions the staggering statistic that 53% of the households in Temple Terrace are already rental units is cause for concern. To add more just doesn't make sense. And as for a steady buzz of people, where will we buzz around? Sally's Beauty Supply? $5 Fashions? The Post Office? Further, the traffic on Bullard Parkway and 56th Street is already a nightmare. We actually have rush hour traffic on Riverhills Drive as people cut through to avoid those two streets. Adding more density to that area is just going to make things worse. I'm admitting that I don't know what the answer is. But I do know that we should be holding public meetings like the "Visioning" meetings we had ten years ago to see where to go from here. Insulting a valued and contributing member of our city does nothing to solve this problem.

Renters v. homeowners is analogous to substitute teacher v. permanent teacher in my mind. Does it mean that the substitute teacher lacks the same skills and abilities, no, but it also does NOT mean that it is the same. Home ownership just like permanent teaching lends itself to a larger commitment and concern for the community/student in general. There are typically harsher penalties for poor performance or lack of "pride in ownership." To ignore that trend, in my mind, is just as short sighted as assuming the worst in all renters. I think trying to relate the sense of community of college kids is a far stretch too, except that USF is present but is still largely a commuter school. I wonder if some of these comments come from actual Temple Terrace residents or just from those that have connections to some elected officials? In that case, you are also entitled to your opinions. However, I strongly agree with many of the building comments and suggestions made. Unfortunately I have been told (by a council member) that eventually the rentals could possibly turn to section 8 like they did in New Tampa.

Rental communities breed problems, look at the police reports all in the apartment complexes, why? that's where the undesirable elements congregate. Are all renters bad, no, just most of them. apartments are a drain on the community, Vlass does not care what happens in 10 years he's a millionaire thanks to Temple Terrace. The slogan should be "Temple Terrace, a place for suckers!" We're going to get the apartments in some fashion and you'll have the same trash in the section 8 areas reside there. Thinking some small group of intellectuals will flock to 1000 square foot WOOD framed apartments is idiocy of the highest level. High end? what you're going to use treated wood? that's what you must be calling high end. It is sad but the naysayers get the last words of" I told you so" but at a huge expense. The rest that want so badly for the Disneyland you were sold initially will try to make the best by saying well we got something out of it. Better yet "Temple Terrace, a place for idiots"

Mr. Alec McGillivray, I believe you misunderstood what I was saying. Call me anytime if you wish to discuss. Take care.

Thank you Lucinda, for your comments.

Some things to consider:
My Mom sold her marco Island home and bought a "urban" style condo. Parking is on bottom floor, retail above it, then 3 floors of luxury condos above that. The retail failed miserably, and the condo prices are half of what she bought for. This is the result of the poor economy, etc.
My in-laws have a riverfront home in New Port Richey. Most of the city dwellers in the "urban concept" are not really who you would want to be your neighbor.

My daughter rents in a new upscale apartment complex in Jax. It is beautiful, with granite, stainless, three bedrooms, double sinks. One year is coming up, and I will be visiting soon. It will be interesting to see how it is kept up, and the type of tenants who have filled it up.

We do have so many apartments in TT. They are pretty messy as are so many homes now. Code enforcement can crack down better.

This is a very difficult decision. The more input the better. It will help us all plan for our future better.
Thanks everyone,
Sue Wiggins

We need to make sure we are all in attendance at the March 20 meeting. Many residents spoke up - until the developer was once again given the floor - but we cannot back down now. The last meeting was very illuminating and if we let these decisions be made behind closed doors we will not get what is best for Temple Terrace. Save the date!!! MARCH 20

This decision should be a no-brainer. We were promised a Town Center to cater to the existing citizens of Temple Terrace....not an apartment complex. There is not one single new business in our redevelopment project. How hard are the developers trying to get the retail into the redevelopment? Why isn't the new Beef O'Bradys in the center instead of in the old Blockbuster building???

Carol Dell

I am very concerned about the proposal for building apartments on the downtown development site. Frankly, there are many arguments against doing so from a community-building standpoint, but the most important issue is that City Council may not have the authority to change the plan that was approved by referendum by city voters.
Voters did not approve any development plan, but a very specific plan that did not include apartments. To deviate from that approved plan, as a minimum, would seem to require another referendum. It is not City Council’s decision to make. In fact, under Florida law, granting sweeping waivers that essentially and fundamentally change the plan approved by referendum may be illegal. As a minimum, I suspect that the issue would have to be sorted out in court.

There are other solutions. The developer should build the condos and pre-sell them at cost. No one was guaranteed to make money in this situation. The city took a risk in launching the plan with its third-choice developer, and the developer took a chance in the middle of one of the worst real estate markets in US history. Certainly they could assess the risk in an intelligent manner. That’s the way capitalism works; it’s all about risk and reward. The city has no obligation to bail out the developer.
Or, the developer could deed the undeveloped property back to the city. That wouldn’t put the property back on the tax rolls, but it would allow the city to look for other options when the market improves.
Finally, the most feasible alternative is to do nothing. Bring the undeveloped property to some acceptable standard – such as removing the paving – and simply wait until conditions for development improve. It took 10 years to start the project, let's wait a bit more.
Putting 214 more apartments next to a complex that contains 250 rental units creates even more transience in an area of the city that needs stability and serious, long-term development. Apartments are not the solution, no matter how convenient they may be for the developer. City Council is obligated to act in the best interests of the city, not in the interests of a developer with whom we have a business relationship.
I urge Council to reject the apartment plan and seek alternative solutions.

I hope all of the comments here have also been shared directly with the Council members and the Mayor!!!

Carol Dell

Howard,

The 2005 bond referendum to fund the Temple Terrace downtown redevelopment was defeated.

This illustrates what I see as a problem. There is so much misinformation floating around. Where can citizens go to get accurate updated info?

Sorry. I relied on information from a neighbor who has been following this pretty closely and who insisted it had passed. I think Lucinda's correct: this has been going on for so long that it's difficult to find comprehensive, accurate information about it.

No problem, it's a complex issue.

Here is the city redevelopment website: http://www.templeterrace.com/revitalize/index.htm

Here is the Citizens for the Revitalization of Temple Terrace website, active since 2001: http://pfweb.com/CRTT/

The Minutes for the February 16th Special City Council Meeting on the redevelopment are here: http://www.templeterrace.com/govt/docs_index.htm

Hope this helps.

Thanks, Grant. You are the best source of information we have.