Commercial real estate board asks city to follow CRA processes re: hatchery

November 13, 2017

NAIOP of Northwest Florida represents developers, owners, and related professionals in office, industry, retail, and mixed use real estate in our area. On Nov. 8, its board sent out this statement regarding the fish hatchery:

Today at its monthly Board Meeting, NAIOP of Northwest Florida unanimously passed a resolution calling on the CRA to follow the established processes for redevelopment in the Urban Core.

As the voice of commercial real estate in our area, NAIOP’s Board Members are concerned that State and Local government would not follow the same rules and procedures set forth for private commercial development. NAIOP has long advocated for an even playing field in the development process, including clear development procedures and adherence to land development codes and all State regulations.

The NAIOP Board urges the CRA to closely examine the process regarding the Fish Hatchery project and hold itself, the City, and the State accountable to those rules and procedures.

You Might Also Like

  • CJ Lewis November 13, 2017 at 10:58 am

    The CRA was briefed on the fish hatchery plan on March 13, 2014 as a lead-up to the City Council’s approval of the lease on May 8, 2011 so perhaps some of these CRA issues were discussed then. Having read the specific law in question, it would be helpful to know if it has been interpreted by a court to require a political division of the state (City of Pensacola) that owns the land to put it up for bids before entering into a contract with the state government (or the county government or ECUA or an internal city project). Putting a fish hatchery at Bruce Beach is a dumb idea and was from the start. The CRA’s 2010 Plan and the URAC’s 2012 Final Report provide for much better uses of the land. However, no matter what happens, it is hard to see how the court could find that construction is now underway as the City and State contend. Assuming that the court does find the lease to be void, any efforts by the City Council to enter into a new lease will be subject to referendum and plans should probably get underway to start that process now because it does seem likely that at least four Council members and probably a fifth too are so openly submissive to Hayward that they would vote YES even if he wanted to put a chemical plant atop Bruce Beach.

    • Rick Outzen November 13, 2017 at 11:12 am

      The CRA issues weren’t discussed. The impression was Bruce Beach would be brought back to the CRA in April.