Pensacola

City administrator misstates facts about 2011 Bruce Beach vote

December 5, 2017

PNJ reporter Joe Baucum has written an article on the Hayward administration’s failure to market Bruce Beach to the private sector. – “City of Pensacola never marketed Bruce Beach to private buyers under Hayward’s tenure.”

Mayor Ashton Hayward refused an interview request, as has become his custom. However, City Administrator Eric Olson wrote in an email to Baucum:

“At a special meeting of the City Council on June 20, 2011, the Council voted unanimously to authorize the Mayor to enter into lease negotiations with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for the Bruce Beach location for the Gulf Coast Marine Fisheries Hatchery and Enhancement Center. The Council did not authorize the Mayor to market the property during the lease negotiations.”

Olson misstates what happened at the meeting.

The Council’s vote was primarily expressing support for the hatchery as presented so that it could be included in the state’s NRDA grant. It also allowed the mayor to enter into non-binding negotiations but did not pre-empt the mayor from getting an appraisal of Bruce Beach or requesting authorization to do a RFP to see if others were interested.

Inweekly had the video of the meeting transcribed.

Mayor Hayward said, “All you’re doing is going to make a letter of intent to say, ‘Hey governor, Pensacola’s definitely interested, and we do have two sites to look at’…obviously, what I’m hearing is Bruce Beach would be the ideal site.”

Council President Maren DeWeese did see the vote as an approval to begin negotiations but wanted to be clear the city was not bound to do anything.

She said, “(The vote) supports lease negotiations. If something completely fell apart and we wanted to have someone else receive this opportunity, I guess … It’s not, Mr. Messer, it’s not binding. It’s simply saying we support it completely. If something fell apart in negotiation-”

And Mayor Hayward interrupted, “Yeah, this is not binding. This is just to guarantee the fact that Pensacola is very interested.”

He continued, “We don’t want to look a gift horse in the mouth. This is something that’s intelligent for our community and jobs and an economic impact. That’s all we’re doing. This is not binding.”

Olson is correct that the council didn’t authorize the Mayor to market Bruce Bruce during the lease negotiations. BUT he fails to mention Mayor Hayward never requested the authorization.

The hatchery was the only option ever presented for the waterfront property by Mayor Hayward.

You Might Also Like

6 Comments

  • Reply Sherri Myers December 5, 2017 at 8:08 pm

    “The Council did not authorize the Mayor to market the property during the lease negotiations.” The only plan the Mayor brought to us was the fish hatchery. He could have brought another plan, many plans for that matter.

    • Reply EPenn December 6, 2017 at 8:04 am

      No other plans because nobody wants the property and hasn’t for decades…

  • Reply Gloria G Horning, Ph.D. December 5, 2017 at 6:26 pm

    “The hatchery was the only option ever presented for the waterfront property by Mayor Hayward.”
    The CRA has had a plan long before the hatchery… It includes complete public access to the water. This is an African American historical site that can be tied into other African American history that runs all the way to Belmont-DeVilliers community.
    The possibilities for Bruce Beach and our children are endless.
    The new hatchery plan does NOT include public access nor any of the orginal plans. It is NOW only a hatchery with open ponds that will smell… we have enough toxic smells down here from the ECUA pipes STILL.

    • Reply EPenn December 6, 2017 at 8:03 am

      The ponds are stormwater ponds… build anything there and they will need to include stormwater ponds…

      • Reply ggh December 7, 2017 at 7:30 am

        No… they are not stormwater ponds. Please do some homework.

        • Reply EPenn December 8, 2017 at 1:58 pm

          Just to make sure I took another look, and you’re still wrong. Ponds 1A, 1B and 2 are all storm water ponds. There is a saltwater drain which dumps directly into the marsh area of the FDEP conservation wetland, swamp area to the south. Is that what you are referring too? Because the FDEP conservation area is already a swamp and is never going to be anything other than a swamp. It already exists and they are not adding anything to it.

    Leave a Reply

    Read This Before Leaving a Comment

    Please make sure your comments follow our guidelines:

    • Please use real name - first and last names.
    • No foul language (please). Comments that are obscene, vulgar or sexually oriented will be removed. Creative spelling of such terms or implied use of such language is banned, also.
    • Do not threaten to hurt or kill anyone.
    • Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
    • Harassing comments. If you are the subject of a harassing comment or personal attack by another user, do not respond in-kind. Email Rick: Rick@inweekly.net. The comment will be deleted asap.
    • Share what you know. Give us your eyewitness accounts, background, observations and history.
    • Do not libel anyone. Libel is writing something false about someone that damages that person
    • Remember, this is my site. I set the rules and reserve the right to remove any comments that I deem inappropriate and to ban anyone who violates these rules.

    Comments that do not adhere will be deleted or marked as SPAM.