Construction And Delivery Dates Pushed Back For Margaritaville Hollywood
And so it begins…..
This afternoon (Wednesday March 21, 2012), Hollywood City Commissioners approved permission for Margaritaville developer Lon Tabatchnik to push back the opening dates for the new resort from March 2014 back to August 2014. There was no discussion during the commission meeting regarding this matter and it was approved via consent agenda. And don’t expect to see any activity on the location any time soon as site clearance of the property on Johnson St. and the Hollywood Broadwalk and A1A was also delayed from March 2012 until June 2012.
Tabatchnik said that the cause for the delays are related to permitting and financing hurdles which are being addressed one by one. According to Tabatchnik the financing is reliant upon permitting approvals, specifically Building, Coastal and US Department of Environmental Protection approvals.
The delay will in no way impact the viability of the project and City leaders have assured the public that the project will continue.
Cathy Swanson-Rivenbark , assistant city manager stated, “We are absolutely convinced that they will be successful with their project and Hollywood beach will be even more successful as a result.”
Is anyone else worried that this might be the first of many delays? I emailed the Commission and Cathy at the City (who has been doing a fantastic job on this project) and asked that they discuss, in public, what the developer was doing to line up back up financing since it does not appear likely that he is going to find 150 Chinese investors who want to migrate to the US at $500k a piece to finance the majority of the cost of this project. The permitting issues are secondary in my mind, but they could have also spelled out what they are stuck on right now as a courtesy to the owners of that land – the citizens of Hollywood – to keep us up to speed on the process.
Cathy responded and lead me to believe – and perhaps she believed as well – that the Commission would have a discussion and ask some questions of the developer at the meeting before granting the extensions to the milestone dates that had already passed without any of the items completed that were supposed to have already been completed. Unfortunately, the Commission chose to bury their heads in the sand and passed up the opportunity to inform the community of the status of the project when they bundled this agenda item with 9 others and passed them all at once without any discussion on any of them.
They also passed up the opportunity to get the City reimbursed for the $300k the developer owes the City/CRA for the City’s expenses associated with the RFP process and everything else the City has done to get the project to the point it is today. This $300k was originally supposed to be paid when the lease was signed back in Feb 2011, but somehow got pushed back to Feb 2012 to try and coincide with the scheduled date in the lease agreement for the building permits to be issued. Now that the building permits look like they won’t happen untill at least June – if they’re lucky – the payment has also been pushed back. The City should have insisted that the developer pay up now if he wanted the extensions to be granted. I’m sure all his consultants and attorneys are being paid their fees and getting their expenses reimbursed, so why not the City? What happens if he can’t get financing and the whole deal unravels and the City never recovers that money?
It’s sad that the Commission can play hardball with the Police and Fire Dept (as they needed to) because of the financial mess they are in, but they can’t play hardball with this developer? The City had no obligation to extend the deadlines for the milestones to be completed. The developer was in default of the agreement for not having completed any of the items he was supposed to by the milestone dates listed on the lease agreement. The City had the right to terminate this lease with this developer and actually keep all the work product that had been produced, at no cost to the City, which they could then use to continue the development on their own or with another more qualified and better financed developer. Instead they chose to give him an extension, and I’m not against having given the guy a break, but I wanted to hear (1) what was causing the delay, and (2) that the Commission intended to hold him to these new deadlines or that they would terminate the agreement and find someone else to proceed with that can get the job done.
Let’s all hope this is the first and only extension/amendment to the agreement that the City approves because if they continue to give this guy more extensions (which they have no obligation to do) he will dig a bigger hole (literally and figuratively) for the City to have to climb out from on their own.
I urge anyone who shares my concern to email the Commission and tell them to uphold the terms of the agreement to protect the City, and not worry so much about how the developer is going to feel (or the money he is going to lose) if and when they have to terminate the agreement with him because he simply cannot perform.
I recognize the developer does not require City approval or acceptance with how they decorate the interior of the building, but is he serious about the mermaid in the lobby that is shown on the recently updated virtual tour posted to the City’s website – http://www.hollywoodfl.org/html/JohnsonStBeachRFP.htm – where they show a bare breasted mermaid holding an over-sized margarita glass with what I presume will be green colored water made to look like a margarita drink in the center of the lobby?
I have to believe (or at least hope) that as the landowner, the City may be able to at least strongly recommend that they reconsider this choice as a visitor’s first impression of this property, and by extension their impression of the City, because I can guarantee you that some travel writers will have a field day – and not in a good way for the hotel or the City – with this mermaid grotto/statue/fountain whatever it is.
The City did the developer a big favor by extending the deadlines for the developer to meet his obligations. I think he can do the City (and himself) a favor and get rid of that ridiculous centerpiece in the lobby and come up with something a bit more creative – who came up with that mermaid anyways, a 12 year old boy just hitting puberty?
If anyone reads this and feels the same way, please email the City staff and commissioners and let them know this is a bad idea that should be changed.
Eli
I think the mermaid in the lobby is a great idea and really fits with the overall theme.
Also, it doesn’t look to me like the mermaid is the “center piece”. It appears to be off to the side when you enter.
The fountain is a great idea and the Margarita glass is very creative. I seriously doubt the water will be green.
You can not account for every one’s taste.
Overall I think the virtual tour looks FANTASTIC!
[...] Apparently it appears that the Developer, Lon Tabatchnick has missed a 5/15/12 deadline to secure financing for the $133 million Margaritaville project. This on top of an earlier deadline change this year that pushed the opening date back from March 2014 to August 2014. [...]