The ceiling heights on the ground floor of the apartment complex to be built at the NE corner of the Redevelopment and the marketing of the ground floor retail space are key to building the citizens' Vision of a walkable Downtown. These are very important factors that will determine whether the first new building built in the Redevelopment is only an apartment complex or if it has retail on the ground floor as prescribed in the MDA. The 24,000 citizens of Temple Terrace want and deserve to have the stores and restaurants that were promised in the Redevelopment.

The commercial portion of the residential will never be rented. Rents in the redevelopment area are much higher than other commercial properties in TT and already keep small business out.

We have a developer who can do has he pleases and is under no contractual agreement to move foward under the MDA, he gets paid and walks away, scott free.

In other words, on Affronti's watch as Mayor, the city a signed an agreement with Vlass that ties our hands and forces us to accept blackmail style changes to the MDA. Nice work.

I would like to know who exactly was on city council at the time this was approved. If they are running for re-election and they signed on to this agreement I sure as heck wouldn't vote for them again.

I hate to say this again, but Tozier was 100% correct about Affronti as Mayor and the redevelopment debacle. I wish I would have voted for him......

It is time for the Mayor to put down his gavel and move on down the road. He continues to blindly support Vlass and their ongoing effort to re-negotiate the MDA that we gave them 26 million dollars in exchange for. The Mayor should actually recuse himself from ANY further discussion on the matter because he has shown his true colors. Leave the decision to the next Administration if need be. The issue is not just four areas, it is the entire arrogant and continued effort by Vlass to ignore OUR Vision and serve their own best interests.
The Mayor asks are these "deal breakers"? The deal has already been struck when the MDA was signed. Threats and intimidation by Vlass to modify the agreement are "Neanderthal" style tactics that should not be tolerated. If they feel their demands are now a deal breaker, that is their decision.
Phase II, the Arts Center is not and should not be held hostage by the MDA discussion as Vlass is attempting. Ceiling height is very important to meet a vast array of commercial/retail applications and is the way to attract a variety of businesses. It is also the code and has been ignored from the beginning. Traffic flow, parking, half-hearted marketing, and lack of adhering to the current MDA are also my concern.
Based on what I have seen, I believe Vlass hopes to sell this parcel to Inland for the apartments, doesn't ever plan to build the Arts Center and then leaves town.

The problem we are faced with RL and Carol is we do not have an MDA. We have a piece of paper with a wish list on it. If it cannot be enforced it's worthless.

The public officials in office when this was signed secured absolutely nothing in the interest of the citizenry and gave our money away, no strings attached.

We have been duped and sold down the river, either through outright negligence or simply business ignorance.

"You must decide if you feel that ceiling height, parking and marketing differences between staff and Vlass are deal breakers.”

Those of you against the cheap wooden apartments that will just add more low income renters to our city are not even mentioned as a sticking point.

Why? They are already a foregone conclusion.

The MDA, even if it had teeth, does not specify owner occupied. It only says residential units. Negligence or ignorance, you decide.

RL, I don't want to disagree because in reality we agree, but an MDA that cannot be enforced is not an MDA, it is simply a child's Christmas Wish List.

From what I understand there is nothing in the contract with Vlass that can force compliance in any legal form. It simply was not put in, another oversight. If someone has verifiable legal knowledge to the contrary, I wish they would speak up.

Now let us discuss another point no one has brought out. I am not a legal scholar by any choice, but has anyone noticed the name of the company doing the redevelopment? Vlass Temple Terrace, LLC., a brand new limited liability corporation.

This is a typical builder ploy done for numerous reasons. Start a new business enterprise with each new project. That way, for example, in 10 years when the place falls apart due to builder negligence there is no one to sue.

Ask many homeowners in that very situation who bought from small to medium builders established as LLC's. The company is closed, bankrupt, caput. No warranty, no one to sue, no money.

Good luck getting one red cent out of a newly formed LLC.

So let's say TT does sue, and lets say TT does win. Vlass TT LLC will be shut down and bankrupt long before TT collects a settlement.

And as far as winning, a judge has to decide based on the wording of the contract, not an a wish list of the citizens. The contract is toothless. Up a creek without a paddle, hell we dont even have a boat.

So, this is the scenario as I see it, and I could be way wrong because I am just a citizen and not privy to the inside scoop of our elected officials.

We can give Vlass what he wants and build what he says. He will then start work until the next thing he wants changed. Eventually we will end up with a project designed, built and conforming to the Vlass MDA, not the citizens.

We can tell Vlass to go suck an egg he is in violation of the Citizen MDA. Then the officials will run around for months saying we will sue this and we are going to do that. All that time the project sits idle and grass grows green.

There will be months, maybe years, of wrangling and bills mounting. Then TT legal counsel will announce they recommend we pay Vlass and not sue because, in their learned opinion, we don't have a leg to stand on and will likely lose any legal action brought forth, incurring even more legal bills and project delay costs. (this of course after the lawyers bilk us good for 3 to 6 months anyway).

So, where does that leave us? Doesn't take a rocket scientist now does it, and if I wrong about this scenario, I sure would like one of the powers that be tell me I am and then back it up with documentation.

If you read really really closely between the lines above, this is exactly what our esteemed Mayor is telling us.

And, one last word. If what I think is correct, we have no choice but to kowtow to Vlass because to do otherwise would place the city in a financial precarious state, affect our bond rating and head us toward bankruptcy ourselves. The whole thing makes me sick.

Tax Questions:
1) Does Vlass pay taxes on the undeveloped property?
2) Why are the taxes projected to be $370,000 when the apartments are fully occupied.......is this different than when they are completed? ( "If we agree to build the 214 multi-family units, according to our chief financial officer, we will generate $370,000 in taxable revenue annually when they are occupied.")

This is an important decision.......do we want a downtown redevelopment or another apartment complex?....214 apartments...that's a lot of small apartments!!!!

I hate the apartments Carol. I hate any more rentals. I hate the idea of a wooden structure that is hard to even insure let alone cheapens the value of the entire complex. I hate not having retail go into the area. I hate that Vlass has priced space out of the market.

I hate all of this, but this is exactly what the Mayor and sitting City council have left us with. I cannot agree with a vote that will likely bankrupt the city.

Again, If I am wrong I would like to hear a rebuttal from someone with direct knowledge, but I don't think that rebuttal is coming.

This has now moved from emotional to financial. It is a very sad outcome to a once exciting vision.

The redevelopment was not started simply for financial gain, it was started to change demographics and give the citizens a sense of place, building nothing but apartments does not accomplish this. The ceiling heights, parking and retail are all important to the long term viability of both the redevelopment area and our city. We have to look forward and build what is right for the future not for just right now. Allowing nothing but apartments is akin to taking the family heirlooms to a pawn shop. Also if you read the current request from Vlass it skirts the ceiling heights, ignores financial disclosures and after getting 26 million form the citizens of Temple Terrace, now wants the City to guarantee Vlass's cash flow by having the City rent the entire first floor, how about a no vote and Vlass performs the way he agreed to?

And really, if my summation is basically correct, I just wish the mayor, city council and city staff would have to cojones to come out and say just that.

That way we could give Vlass what he wants to move forward and move on to better things.

But then that would not make them and their decision making ability look very good now, would it.

This is lunacy, the letter is rife with misinformation and misquotes, the Mayor is obviously out of his element.

Why is a sitting Mayor supporting the recommendations of a developer over that of his own city staff? Regarding city staff and developer who do you suppose "really" has the best interests of the community at heart? I can think of many scenarios where the developer would make out like a bandit but leave the city holding the bag. I am amazed that so-called captains of industry in this town would be having difficulty here. It is up the city and citizens to look out for the best interests of the city long term. The developer, I restate, is a business associate and nothing more, he is not our new best friend. Shame on us for our continued naivete.

"because he knows we have no choice"? Vlass is the one that is not upholding the MDA that they signed, that is "breach of contract". Moving on to a new developer is not the end of the world, especially when we are not at fault. There IS an MDA in place, it is not great because the Mayor insisted it be crafted in 12 hours, it could be much better, but it is good enough to require Vlass's adherence to it. Per the MDA Vlass must also continue construction work with no lags, it has been a long time since I have seen dirt turned down there. There is no reason for fear and panic. The MDA is public record.

Yet agan, Temple Terrace is gong to miss the boat...;-(
http://www2.tbo.com/news/news/2012/sep/30/renters-rule-homeowners-now-in-the-minority-in-tam-ar-517427/

This project is 15 years behind schedule now -

The city will not go "broke" if we do not concede to these demands. Vlass agreed to the original deal, End of Story! Just because he decided he found a better deal to broker it to Inland is not our fault. Let us look at all the reasons we have been told that we need this deal
1. Best deal we can get
2. Cannot get financing for commercial
3. City will be in financial ruins
4. We need the tax revenue
5. Large legal fees if we vote against it
These are just a handful. These are all scare tactics people. Mayor and Vlass are trying to sell you a bag of goods. Vlass has not even held up his end of completing phase 2, so why in the world are we discussing phase 3? Developer has not done his end of the agreement, so why are we being pushed for this vote? Why is the Mayor putting out statements that are completely one sided to supporting this? City staff has been against this project because it does meet our demands, they know it is a garbage project. There has been no marketing and nor will they ever try to rent the commercial space. Pay Vlass what he is owed for the facelift on phase 1. It is time to move on people, this is a crap deal for us.

A few facts to consider
1. Maximum density of 475,000 square feet retail/office and 555 residential units could generate up to 22,389 car trips per day (std. trip generation grid). Overall density needs to be lowered or our quality of life will be destroyed.
2. 163.380 FL statutes and the consultants report that allowed our misguided Mayor to break a tie vote in a parliamentary procedure to dispose of the property for "fair value" relied heavily on "qualitative" consideration that is not being provided in my opinion under the proposed MDA changes.
3. Block B & Block C would allow apartments without as many waivers to the MDA but Vlass has refused to negotiate the compromise of moving the apartments. This is understandable as the original agreement negotiated required a $15,000 per unit density payment for residential units which he is avoiding by forcing the apartment issue in Block A.
4. On 9/16/05 Ralph Bosek wrote (from citizen input after defeat of the CRA referendum) point 4 "The project scope does not fit Temple Terrace's residential nature, particularly with the high density and high-rise buildings." point 8 "mixed use plan with reduced density..."

1st, I support the TTRA denying these requested changes to the MDA. 2nd, After that, renegotiate the MDA do less density & require him to put the apt. in Block B and C where they belong to provide the original "qualitative consideration" agreed to under 163,380, the MDA, chapter 25 & concept plan in block A.

"The city will not go "broke" if we do not concede to these demands."

It appears, in this statement, and others made here in the Patch and at candidate forums that financial ruin is a real possibility. Until someone with real information that can back this up with hard numbers I am going to assume the worst.

"If there was no way to demand that a developer follow through with the MDA he signed there would be no point to planning or contracts in general."

Excuse me, but if you read or saw what the Vlass attorney said at his last appearance. This is the last offer. If this is not approved Vlass walks, in not so many words. So, what teeth does this thing have? NONE.

"1st, I support the TTRA denying these requested changes to the MDA. 2nd, After that, renegotiate the MDA do less density "

So what do we do when the developer walks and does not renegotiate, as the attorney for Vlass implied?

Listen folks, I am not trying to be argumentative. I want direct answers to direct questions poised in my scenario based on what I read in this article. We can do supposition from now until the cows come home to the Temple Terrace Meadow.

We can stop our feet and toot our horns. Scream from every street corner and wave banners.

But after it is all said and done, if we do not have a legal leg to stand on we are S-C-R-E-W-E-D.

I just wish someone could give us a clear answer.

I think citizens should demand a public meeting before this vote. Maybe the Patch can spearhead the movement.

It must be made clear to us what our legal standing is by a lawyer, not the Mayor or council.

It must be made crystal clear to use what the likely financial fallout will be with a no vote.

This is too important not have all the facts. What is in that contract?!?!?!?

People,

Its implausible that Vlass would allow someone, such as Affronti, to speak for him to suggest that if our council doesn't follow the Vlass script that Vlass will vacate his interests, walk away, lock stock and barrel, from his involvement in his project. It is important to remember that the other component of this MDA may be flourishing and most certainly will provide a lot of value to our City if we do buy it back. If in fact Vlass walks, and walks from this south parcel development, is that what we are buying back? And can he really walk if he has sold a part interest in this south parcel which I understand he has…..Perhaps we actually have Vlass over the barrel!

Its important you contact elected councilmembers with questions, ask them for real answers such as; How much must the City pay Vlass for his termination of this deal? Just as important, what is the value of these assets if we take over!

Certainly Council have the dollar figures available to base an important decision like this on. Let taxpayers see those figures, if not shame on you Councilmembers. Its hard to believe your elected representatives don’t want to have real numbers & good information before any "Termination" vote is taken. If termination is really what Affronti is stating, in his clarification letter, but have Council and City manager considered these points or other business details necessary for the decisions.
Mo

"Its implausible that Vlass would allow someone, such as Affronti, to speak for him to suggest that if our council doesn't follow the Vlass script that Vlass will vacate his interests, walk away, lock stock and barrel, from his involvement in his project." I suggest you find and view the the last meeting where Vlass's attorney spoke. It is the Vlass attorney implying the walk away, speaking on behalf of Vlass, not Affronti. He presented a final ultimatum. It was rather quite clear, many citizens even saw it as a threat.

"Perhaps we actually have Vlass over the barrel!" I think not. He has control of 26 million worth of land for nothing with no legal binding for him to perform. Should the deal fall through the city of TT owes him for every penny he has spent up to this point. He sure as hell won't be wearing a barrel.

As far as termination costs, the city will have no idea of the cost of termination. Vlass will present a bill and lawyers negotiations would begin at that point, for months at a minimum. They may have a guestimate, but legal costs and project delays are sure to skyrocket those.

As far as the value of the assets, well, the land was bought, for the most part, at the top of the market. 50% haircut at least.

What Affronti's letter here implies, at least to me, is my scenario of the possible outcome is correct. Until he, or someone else in the city proves me wrong with hard facts I trust it is accurate.

At the risk of being publicly scolded by the mayor, yet again, I would like to second the idea that the mayor remove himself from this issue. It looks to me that the most benign interpretation of this latest scare letter is that he hopes to assure that he leaves office with SOMETHING being built behind his ridiculous "Our Dream Has Been Realized" statue.
I was a fourth grade teacher for years and in my math and arithmetic classes 2 always came before 3. Lets DEMAND to know why phase II has been put on the back burner. To start these apartments before our NEW city officials are seated in just a few months is a slap in the face to the voters of this community. We have waited for years and a few more months will not make or break us. If we have to raise taxes to pay for this disaster so be it. Maybe we will be more careful about who we vote for in the future.

JS,
We all understand that there are many questions that have not been answered. Vlass is in a binding contract on Phase II, it has no bearing on Phase III, yet they are holding us hostage. They are certainly using it as leverage. The problem we have with our mayor and council is they have zero experience in developing a project of this size. "Donohue, who is a supporter of moving ahead with Vlass, seems to allude to the same situation when she speaks at some functions." Mrs. Donohue has been a great citizen for the city of TT, but again zero developing experience. I am certain she has not analyzed the city budgets. The city simply needs to put a foot down and not discuss any changes to Phase III until Phase II is complete. Why all of a sudden is there this massive rush? Something is looming in November folks. If Vlass does not want to finish Phase II then put it out for public bid. Someone would build it. Lastly the mayor keeps bringing up all of this revenue that the city will generate, that revenue will not help when all of our property values drop like a rock in three years after completion. These frame apartment buildings are not meant to last 15 years. The property will be sold to Inland who will convert the buildings to subsidized housing in a few years and then they will sell it off. I am in the real estate development field, this is nothing new.

Thanks Chase but no offense you have not answered a single question, and personally, in theory, I agree 100% with what you say, and have advocated that from the start of this fiasco.

You say there is binding contract on Phase II. Have you seen, read and had it legally analyzed?

In my view the Vlass stance represents one of or perhaps both of two things:

First, the contract has no teeth. Now, I am not a lawyer, but I do know the value of a contract is in how it is actually drawn up and executed, not in the wishes behind it.

Second, Vlass LLC TT, as a new and independent limited liability company pretty much isolates them personally from anything we could do. Sue them and you bankrupt a company specifically created to build the redevelopment. If I were the developer I would squeal in delight at that setup.

As someone in the development field you should be well aware of the abuse by unscrupulous builders with LLCs.

I am 100% against the wood structure apartments and all the changes Vlass proposes, but before I dig a hole and jump in it I want to be absolutely sure our city officials have a designed a strong ladder so I can climb out. From what I have seen so far, I have little faith in that, sorry.

So, you are proposing the city do something and we it support without the citizens really knowing, for sure, a single shred of the facts of the financial and developmental impact. Cant do it.

Affronti is lost. he represents Vlass it seems, not TT if Vlass wants it Joe wants it. Why is that? Vlass has screwed the city and he laughs at all the tough talk because he has "outs" He knew he was going to clean up when he took this bid and knew he wasn't going to do anything else other than what HE wants to do. He has threatened to pull out and leave but when they did not cave he pulled it back wanting the message to be sent he will go to extremes. Face it we as a city are getting screwed and nothing at this point will change that. But lets not give in to the Vlass group just because Joe says so. he probably is hoping for a 6 ft oil painting paid by Vlass in the arts center of himself looking at his statue!!!

Still looking for answers to these
Tax Questions:
1) Does Vlass pay taxes on the undeveloped property?
2) Why are the taxes projected to be $370,000 when the apartments are fully occupied.......is this different than when they are completed? ( "If we agree to build the 214 multi-family units, according to our chief financial officer, we will generate $370,000 in taxable revenue annually when they are occupied.")

Chillura is having an ice cream social tomorrow. We should all go and ask him these questions. Maybe he has some answers.

JS I suggest you go to the city clerks office and read the MDA yourself all your speculation is just that speculation, intellegent decisions are not based on speculation. You keep saying they will walk, how do you know that? They have threatened to walk 3 times already and yet they are still here why? Maybe its becase while the MDA is not perfect it does have some "teeth" all the documents are at the city clerks office rather than speculate what might happen from one letter by the mayor and posturing of an attorney go educate your self and then comment based on that education.

PS: JS did you bother to go to the ice cream social as you suggested?

How about this for some Truth, teller. I am not a lawyer. I have not been elected to represent the people. The answer I want should come from the people in place in the city we pay to work for us and those we have elected.

Those elected officials should be educating all of us. It is not something I have the expertise in, nor should I have to attempt it. The last time I looked we are a representative form of government, not a direct democracy.

Maybe it is enough for someone as informed as you to make the decision based on "maybe.......it does have some teeth." That is not enough for me to decide to support a vote that could possibly bankrupt the city.

Obviously you have not read the MDA or understood either, or you could explain it intelligently here. Yet you make your decisions on suppositions. That is the kind of thinking that has gotten us into this mess in the first place.

The citizens of this city agreed to the redevelopment based on the assumption council, mayor and city staff would do everything they should to safeguard the city's investment. People like you need to stop assuming and demand answers from the people in charge.

Regardless of the present public standing of the mayor, I sure as hell am going to take a letter he posts to the public with more weight than anonymous comment like yours.

Thanks Taxpayer poor, it is those kind of facts and figures the people really need to know. I wish we had much more concerning the financial impacts and risks of this project, price adjusted to today's market. Unfortunately, I think most of them would rather choose to ignore them.