Neighborhood
Associations
ANNOUNCEMENT
Community"
GONE FOREVER?
MANY OF US FEEL THAT, GIVEN THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ISSUE,
IT WILL NEVER GO AWAY.
FOR A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE CLICK HERE
A RECENT EDITORIAL TELLS US "RELAX," IT'S ALL OVER...
TO READ THAT EDITORIAL (BEST CONSUMED CUM GRANO SALIS)
CLICK HERE
After the disappointment of Jabour-Watermark-HARC, a number of our
neighborhood people have been thinking (anew) that HARC should be
revised, and should consist of a five member board with two
alternates elected by voters who are registered in the Historic
District.
In this way the HARC board would be more responsive to the public.
I'm sure that the "powers that be" will have multiple reasons why
this would not be a good idea. I'm also sure that a majority of home
and business owners within the district would embrace the idea, and
would have their own multiple reasons why an elected board IS a good
idea.
(Has anybody else wondered about how the little guy has to jump
through 100 hoops, often at great expense, while the big boys'
projects get rubber stamped, even in apparent contradiction of
existing regulations?)
We have two commissioners representing HARC areas up for reelection
next year. I think it might be a good time to bring up this issue,
although in the end, it's possible that it would take a citywide
referendum to achieve it.
Certainly the present system has failed us.
Although I generally subscribe to the axiom, "If it ain't broke,
don't fix it," in this case, it is clearly "broke" and needs
fixing as soon as possible.
people have had serious
misgivings about HARC in the
past few years.
Although it's obvious that
HARC and its predecessors have
served us well in the past, the
Watermark decision, clearly
inconsistent with published
regulations puzzles many of us.
Whether you think it's time to
revise HARC or not, KWNA
welcomes your comments and
suggestions.
Click Here to E Mail US!
BY TIMOTHY O'HARA
Citizen Staff
KEY WEST — The state Supreme Court refused to hear the city's appeal of a landmark court decision
that could open up Truman Annex to short-term rentals.
Kathy and Opie Rollison plan to seek at least $300,000 from the city in past rent they say they could
have collected if they were allowed to rent out their Truman Annex condominium to vacationers. The
couple had not rented out the condominium in the more than five years since the city passed a law
requiring an occupational license or a minimum stay of 30 days for rentals. The family hopes to go
before a judge by December to have the monetary aspect of the case resolved, Opie Rollison said
Tuesday.
"It's time for the city to pay the piper," Rollison said.
The Supreme Court's decision ends years of legal battles between the city and the Rollisons. City
Attorney Bob Tischenkel is unsure the courts will grant the family the $300,000, he said.
"There are a number of limitations against people seeking damages against governments. My initial
impression is that the Rollisons will bump up against those limitations," Tischenkel said.
More than 400 other Truman Annex homeowners and the Truman Annex Reality Co. recently filed a
lawsuit against the city. They are asking for $20 million in damages for money lost due to the short-
term rental law and the right to rent out their homes for less than the 30-day minimum. Prior to filing
the lawsuit, the homeowners said they would not sue the city or seek damages if the city would allow
them to rent out their homes. The offer was refused.
Tischenkel planned to amend the short-term rental ordinance and set up an application process, but
the city may not do that now, because of the pending litigation with the Truman Annex residents, he
said.
State Third District Court of Appeal judges ruled earlier this month that the Rollisons did not break
the law by renting out their Truman Annex condominium to tourists, because it was rented less than 50
percent of the year. The decision reversed a September 2002 circuit court ruling in favor of the city.
The appeals court based its opinion on a policy it said the city had prior to 1998, which allowed people
to rent out their homes short-term, as long as the homes were rented less than 50 percent of the time,
according to court records.
tohara@keysnews.com
the norm. But people have short memories. We will all be better off, the renters,
the residents, the hotel and guesthouse owners, everyone, if we don't let Old
Town go totally "transient."
You be the judge. For better or worse, in 2003 the average value
of real property in Key West increased by 46%, and 2004 looks
like it will be right behind it! (Ed. note: It was.) Would values
have increased that much without the efforts of our
neighborhood groups? Don't count on it!
What kind of a neighborhood would we have if we hadn’t stood
together over the past few years?
If it hadn’t been for the efforts of concerned homeowners our
neighborhoods would be sprinkled with uncountable transient
rental operations like the few legal ones left on Frances Street.
Full sized tour buses from Miami would still ply our narrow
streets, stopping by the cemetery and along Frances Street, with
their diesel engines running as a tour guide narrated the charms
of our quiet neighborhood to busloads of tourists. (Remember
“We’re a neighborhood, not a side show!")? Mini-resorts like the
one planned on Pine Street would be planted among us. A
variance-happy Commission would have allowed the building of
outsized mega-additions throughout our neighborhoods.
“ROGO II” would have allowed the division of any house into
smaller units that could be sold as condominiums without regard
to density or parking. Neighborhood businesses would have been
allowed to expand without regard to parking, and our parking
situation, already difficult, would have become as impossible as
it is for our neighbors in the areas closer to Duval Street. Airport
noise would have continued totally unabated without regard to
the comfort or safety of those on the ground below. These are all
areas in which our neighborhood associations have protected
and enhanced our neighborhoods and properties. Would the
values have increased as much if we hadn’t been there to protect
our own interests? Or would the inevitable crunch have come
when the buying public realized that our area, despite the
warmth of our winters, had been allowed to become an
overpriced slum? You be the judge.
Now "Wilma," the real estate market going south, and the
insurance crisis have changed the equation. Finally the
"workforce housing" issue is going to make the politicians get
more serious. Turning Old Town into an additional HOTEL
ZONE is not a wise policy move at this time. There are certain
areas where an indiscriminate policy like that applied to Truman
Annex will seriously destroy the value of the properties.
and the New in Key West to the benefit of
both and to the detriment of neither?
There is, but at the moment it seems to defy
human nature!
US AN E MAIL!
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |