US1 Radio Morning Magazine (September 28, 2007)

As mentioned the other day , Bill Becker of US1 Radio's Morning Magazine show invited me to come onto the show and discuss the problems with the FKACC plan for the Truman Waterfront. Originally I was to appear near the end of the show, but the Mayor cancelled his scheduled appearance earlier in the show -- so they moved me to his slot, right up front.

Basically, I talked for about 5 minutes, covering several of the issues that are discussed in depth in my letters found earlier in this blog. Bill's questions were probing without being confrontational. I was very nervous, being my first radio interview, but I think that I articulated my points reasonably well.

If you're a glutton for punishment, you can listen to the entire one hour show here. There are a few teasers in the first 5 minutes or so, and the actual interview starts about the 10 minute point.

It did appear to me that Bill was trying to get me to point fingers and/or espouse "conspiracy theories" with some of his questions. I guess it would have been more interesting to some people if I started making insulting accusations against members of the FKACC, or if I theorized about whether some developer or corporation was trying to influence the direction they've taken.

But the fact is: I do not know anything about that aspect of the project, and I won't speculate in that direction.

Anyone who has read my letters knows that I am solely concerned with how poor the FKACC plan is. About how little affordable assisted living it provides. I have not accused the FKACC people of any dastardly deeds -- only with locking in on a poor plan and sticking with it without regard for the actual NEEDS of Key West. I have stated more than once that they are good people with a good cause -- but that they blew it. That may be taken as an insult, but only to those who insist that they know what's best for us all without asking us. Those who DO take the time and effort to find out what the community really needs would not be insulted.

One statement I made drew a significant response. Bill asked me about how much nursing care would be available in the INDEPENDENT living component of the project. I correctly stated that there would be none. I also stated that there wouldn't be "nursing" in the Assisted Living component either. Unfortunately in my nervousness I left out the word "care" (ie, "nursing care"). This left the FKACC people an opening to challenge my statement.

I did correctly state that when a resident of the facility reaches a point where nursing care is required, they would have to MOVE OUT and seek a nursing home or convalescent center elswere. That statement was valid and correct.

But the very next day (Saturday morning) the Citizen newspaper rushed to print TWO letters from the FKACC board refuting my statements on the radio. (I can't remember the last time I saw them print letters that quickly -- usually it takes several days before a response letter makes it into the paper.) Of course the Citizen has a member of the FKACC Board on their own Editorial Board which tends to get things expedited. Nothing like "fair and balanced" journalism....

Both of the letters generally just rehashed their standard talking points about how this was the ONLY chance to get an assisted living facility (totally false), etc. But they did make an effort to refute my statement about nursing at the facility. They described how a nurse would be "on staff" at the facility. But of course there's a big difference between "nurse on staff" and "nursing care". One involves just monitoring the situation, the other involves actual medical care. Again the FKACC clouded the issue, and right before the election.

But that wasn't the end of it. The following Monday, Bill Becker brought back the FKACC people to do "damage control". I had struck too close to home and so the big guns came out on the DAY BEFORE THE REFERENDUM and once again got their opportunity to repeat their same old story, with the same inaccuracies and fuzziness. All this while Bill Becker made such a point about how much he respected their opinions, and without any challenging questions.

I felt compelled to send Bill the following email:

Date: 10/1/2007 8:47 AM To: Bill Becker - US1 Radio News Network Subject: One last comment It's a shame that the FKACC people get TWO oppotunities to give their side, while those who dispute them only get one. She continued the same old "poor poor pitiful elderly" that they've been doing for the last 3 years. I (and others like me, who are far more than "a few" as she claims) want to do MORE for those people. THEIR plan doesn't do enough. She ignored the gist of my complaint -- that MOST of the land will be used for people who are NOT "poor pitiful seniors". I wanted MORE of the project to focus on them. Of course they know that if they don't cloud the issues their plan would never be accepted. I realize that your show isn't a "debate" show, but it would have been nice if her assertions were challenged as much as you challenged mine. But regardless, thank you for letting me at least try to counter their attempts to push the "poor pitiful seniors" into the back of the property by the dumpsters while setting up a bunch of nice retirement homes for the wealthy. (They may have had better intentions than that, but that IS what their project has become.) Most likely too little, too late, but at least I tried. David Lybrand

KWTN Letter to the Editor (September 28, 2007)

Reader Says Vote No On Assisted Living Land Give-Away The public-relations blitz by the Florida Keys Assisted Care Coalition (FKACC) in their efforts to get free land for a big expensive condo community on our precious waterfront rolls on. They obscure the fact that their huge project only provides a very limited amount of affordable assisted care (only 20 units). They blur the fact that the NON-assisted component of their project is bigger than the infamous Watermark project that horrified the community around the Key West Bight. That’s right, most of their facility will be big 3-story buildings, holding 95 NON-ASSISTED living condos. In sales-pitch seminars and letters to various local publications they claim that the project— where the prime location would be granted to them for free— will be beneficial to all. Excuse me? With only 20 affordable assisted units in a project of 135 units? And 95 of which aren’t even assisted living? How many average islanders will that benefit? Some have made the claim that those who don’t accept this big give-away somehow can’t be taken seriously unless they provide ideas of their own. Okay, how about this . . . Why not toss out all the expensive non-assisted retirement homes and bump up the number of assisted units to ONE HUNDRED. And qualify ALL of them for subsidies (just like Bayshore Manor)? That would give 100 locals a shot at affordable assisted care, rather than just 20. But how would this be handled without the “subsidy” money from all those rich folks moving into the planned nice condo community for those who don’t need assistance? Without that Watermarksized condo project taking up most of the allocated land, there would be enough space to build a nice restaurant alongside the assisted living buildings. It could provide reasonable cost food, with ALL profits fed into a subsidy fund/foundation. It could use “interns” from the culinary program being proposed elsewhere at the waterfront by the Bahama Conch Community Land Trust. Instead of reserving all that land for rich retirees who don’t even need assisted care, we could ALL enjoy the restaurant, and it would subsidize a REAL assisted care facility at a much greater scale than is currently planned. I’m sure flaws will be pointed out in this alternative plan, but the point is: there ARE alternatives that can be considered. We don’t have to lock out the average citizen from so much of the Truman Waterfront. And we can provide MORE affordable assisted care to the community than they are planning to. Let’s look beyond the slick dog and pony show the FKACC is trotting out all over town and come up with a plan that better meets the needs of the average citizen of our community. David Lybrand

Letter to US1 Radio (sent September 26, 2007)

(On September 26, a representative of the FKACC appeared on Bill Becker's "Morning Magazine" show on US1 Radio. It inspired me to write the letter below to the US1 Radio news address. In response, Bill Becker invited me to appear on his show on Friday, 9/28. More on that in a later post.)

Subject: The FKACC plan discussed on today's show Today you provided a "candidate forum' for the promoters of the Florida Keys Assisted Care Coalition (FKACC) plan for the Truman Waterfront. With your other ballot-issue forums you provide for each candidate to state their views over the air. I'm asking that, in concern for fairness, you provide the same consideration for those who have a problem with the FKACC's plan. Someone should be allowed to refute the misleading and downright erroneous statements being made by the FKACC's representatives. For example, in today's interview the FKACC representative lumped anyone who opposes their plan in with unreasonable people who would, when given a free $100, complain that it wasn't $200. That's ridiculous. The opponents of their plan are against the bloated nature of the project in relation to the amount of affordable assisted care it would provide. We're not a bunch of unreasonable lunatics, we're concerned that the average citizens will see too little benefit from the plan the FKACC is hyping. We'd be happy to have an assisted living facility on the Truman Waterfron -- just not THAT plan. Even more erroneous, close to being a LIE, is the statement made several times today that "if this is voted down it's all over". That's hogwash. The FKACC people would be free to clean up their plan and resubmit it in the next election (which will be in January). If they choose to ignore the concerns of the citizens and "take their ball and go home", they wouldn't be showing very good faith. But even if they do that, the city can, and SHOULD, still provide an assisted living facility there. Just one that actually meets our needs! Not a big give-away of free land for a bunch of good-sized homes that are NOT FOR ASSISTED LIVING (as the FKACC's plan insists is required for this project). NOT ONCE today did they mention that 80% of the land they want would NOT be used for assisted living! It'll be used for "independent living" -- a glorified retirement community with concierge service. Look it up on their site! 95 large units, consuming all but two smaller buildings "in the back", will be for nice retirement homes. NOT for assisted living. THAT is the issue! And they continue to IMPLY that any unit in there would be available for "all incomes". BULL. Their specific plan (see their site) says that only half of the assisted units will be affordable, and only 8 out of the 95 "independent living" units (retirement homes) would be affordable. This is far below City standards for the "affordable" component of any development. Can you imagine the waiting list for those, while the wealthy can buy into the others? Is that what we want our land to be used for? We can provide MORE affordable assisted care there than the FKACC people plan to, despite their claims of doom and gloom if we don't accept their well-financed pitch and build the waterfront retirement homes for the rich. This is NOT a crazy idea -- it's one that is being obfuscated by the smoke and mirrors of the FKACC plan. Let's do better! This is NOT an "anti-Assisted Living" issue, it's a "don't waste our valuable resources on a facility that's not good enough" issue. We can do better, and we SHOULD. I hope you give someone a chance to provide the other side of the issue before the election. I'd be willing to speak on that behalf if no one else does. David Lybrand Key West

Citizen Letter to the Editor (Sept. 23, 2007)

(The following letter was written in response to the Citizen's endorsement of the FKACC plan duing the run-up to the election. They had endorsed the plan without disclosing that Ed Block, a member of the FKACC Board, was also a member of their own Editorial board.)

Assisted living plan is not good enough The Citizen has endorsed the Florida Keys Assisted Care Coalition plan using the same faulty logic that the FKACC has spent a lot of money promoting all over town. The flaws in their assertions must be considered before one votes in favor of this proposal. You and the FKACC continue to make the false claim that voting against this kills any chance for an assisted living facility. That's hogwash. The property will remain available and can be used for a more appropriate facility. Killing this plan will merely prevent the giveaway of much of that land that was explicitly planned for assisted living to people who don't need assisted care. A better plan that focuses on affordable assisted care would be welcome there, and can still happen without this vote. You and the FKACC continue to make the misleading claim that the facility will be available to "all income levels." Actually only eight out of the 95 "independent living" units would be affordable. That's less than 10 percent, whereas the city's standard for new development is supposed to be 30 percent. Even if you add the independent living facility's 95 units to the assisted living facility's 40 units (20 of which are affordable) the total is still only 21 percent affordable. Despite the free land, they don't plan to even be close to city standards. You and the FKACC continue to downplay how much of this land will not be used for assisted care. There will not be 60 assisted care units, there will be only 40. (There is room for a second bed in these units, but how many people will share their room) And only half will be affordable. Most of the free land will be covered by the large, expensive independent units (many of which are 1,200 square feet). The assisted living units are in a small parcel well away from the water. You even made the claim that the facility is not on the waterfront, despite there being no buildings (only a street and some open space) between the facility and the water. That's really a stretch. We can and must do better for our seniors. We can provide MORE assisted care there without giving away land for large homes for people who can still get around. We CAN provide more affordable assisted care there. Don't let this faulty plan be rammed down our throats. Demand a better plan by voting against this one. David Lybrand Key West

Keynoter Letter to the Editor (sent Sep 12, 2007)

(At the end of August, 2007, the Hometown PAC asked me debate an FKACC representative at an upcoming election forum at the Tropic theater. Unfortunately I had to be out of town the week of the debate, so I recommended to them that Bob Kelly might be an alternative voice. Apparently neither he nor anyone else was available. So the moderators, including Keynoter editor Larry Kahn, lofted a few softball questions at the FKACC speaker. Afterward I wrote this letter to Larry for his paper, but it never ran. In fact the KeyNoter never ran ANY letters questioning the FKACC plan, despite several that were submitted.)

Once again at the recent public forum the FKACC continues their quest for free land for a big expensive condo community on our precious waterfront. They again obscure the fact that their huge project only provides a very limited amount of affordable assisted care (only 20 units). They blur the fact that the NON-assisted component of their project is similar to the infamous Watermark project that horrified the community around the Key West Bight. That's right, most of their facility will be big 3-story buildings, holding 95 NON-assisted-living condos, where the residents can be healthy enough to still be employed. They claim that the project, on the prime location that would be granted to them for free, will be beneficial to all. Excuse me? With only 20 affordable assisted units in a project of 135 units? And 95 of which aren't even assisted living? How many average islanders will that benefit? Please don't think that the complaint about the expensive retirement homes means that the assisted living facility itself is not welcome at the waterfront. Indeed just the opposite: there should be MORE affordable assisted living units there! Why not toss out all the expensive non-assisted retirement homes and bump up the number of assisted units to ONE HUNDRED. And qualify ALL of them for subsidies (just like Bayshore Manor)? That would give 100 locals a shot at affordable assisted care, rather than just 20. But how would this be handled without the subsidy money from all those rich folks moving into the planned nice condo community? Without that Watermark-sized condo project taking up most of the allocated land, there would be enough space to build a nice restaurant alongside the assisted living buildings. It could provide reasonable cost food, with ALL profits fed into a subsidy fund/foundation. It could use "interns" from the culinary program being proposed elsewhere at the waterfront by the Bahama Conch Community Land Trust. Instead of reserving all that land for rich retirees who aren't even ready for assisted care, we could ALL enjoy the restaurant, and it would subsidize a REAL assisted care facility at a much greater scale than is currently planned. I'm sure flaws will be pointed out in this alternative plan, but the point is: there ARE alternatives that can be considered. We don't have to lock out the average citizen from so much of the Truman Waterfront, and we can provide MORE affordable assisted care to the community. Let's look beyond the FKACC's claims that there's "no other way", and come up with a plan that better meets the needs of the average citizens of our community. David Lybrand Key West