Citizen Letter to the Editor (November 18, 2007)

Add affordable assisted units to senior facility proposal Last month the voters in Key West approved a referendum to allow a 99 year lease on property at the Truman Waterfront for a facility for seniors. The referendum was rigorously promoted by the Florida Keys Assisted Care Coalition (FKACC), who promoted a plan that was heavy on subsidizing (by providing free land to) the wealthy wishing to get into a nice retirement home but light on providing actual affordable assisted care. It's not too late to guide this plan back on track toward providing more support for the average citizens of Key West. The development is about be put into the "request for proposal" (RFP) process to invite developers to submit plans for the development. The developers' proposals must met the RFP that the City will issue. How that RFP is written is the key. Our job is to demand that the city, while writing the RFP, must fix the problems with the plan that the FKACC has been trying to slip by us. They want to include 87 expensive retirement homes (some worth over $1M) for people who can still drive and work, but only 20 affordable rooms for those actually needing assisted care. (They also include 20 more MARKET RATE assisted units that few average Key Westers would be able to afford). This imbalance must be corrected in the RFP process. See http://www.keywestseniorcare.com/ for the full background on the problems with the current plan if you haven't kept up with the issues involved. And please attend next week's City Commission meeting and/or let your commissioners know that they must take off the blinders and look closer at what the FKACC is trying to pull off. Take back the Truman Waterfront! David Lybrand Key West

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

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

Citizen Letter to the Editor (July 19, 2007)

Public should decide on assisted living plans Recently Joan Higgs of the Florida Keys Assisted Care Coalition (FKACC) responded to my concerns about the retirement community they propose for the Truman Waterfront. Her response continues to distort the issues involved. She stated that there will be 40 assisted units, however she left out the fact that only 20 of those will be affordable. All of the units at Bayshore Manor are affordable (any bed can be subsidized if a need is shown), but only 20 of the 40 units in the proposed waterfront facility would be affordable. The rest would be so expensive that the average Conch would be left out. She stated that it's convenient to have the assisted units close to the expensive retirement homes because couples might need to split up with one in each facility. But think about it: With the limited number of assisted units available, and the waiting lists that would be involved, what are the odds that two members of a single family will "make the cut" to get into two separate units simultaneously? Only people with the resources to live in the full-price (non-affordable) units may be able to buy their way into that kind of arrangement. Certainly not the average Conch. Does this justify giving away free use of all of this land for those few cases? Joan "takes exception" to my claim that FKACC preys on emotions in their attempt to get this free land for their retirement community, but her letter spends several paragraphs talking about "seeing the pain" and "frail couples" being "tucked in." She accuses those who aren't touched as being outside our "One Human Family" and not being a "compassionate human." I believe this is exactly the point I was trying to make. She asks that we trust the FKACC when they say there is no better option. I'm sorry, there must be other options. People are ready to have assisted living on the waterfront, but they want more than 20 affordable units. They certainly don't want a big set of expensive retirement condos as imposing as the original plan for the Watermark development crowding the park. Let "us" be the ones to decide which plan is best. Don't try to force a single plan onto us. Give us some options. David Lybrand Key West

Solares Hill Letter to the Editor (July 13, 2007)

Dear Editor: The big guns at the FKACC have seen fit to accuse me of a case of NIMBY in my contesting of their project for the Truman Waterfront. Once again they're using smoke and mirrors to try to confuse the citizenry of our fair city. The fact is, I did NOT call for the affordable assisted living facility be located elsewhere. Indeed, that's exactly what the original vision for the Truman Waterfront called for, and I have no problem with it. I welcome it. What I do not welcome there is a large expensive retirement complex like the FKACC is proposing. Did ANYBODY, other than the FKACC folks, ever call for a big retirement community there? Why is this the ONLY plan that they have presented to us? The facility was supposed to be ASSISTED LIVING. And people wanted it to be affordable. That is what the original vision for the waterfront called for. The FKACC project is a subversion of that vision, despite their denials. They state that there are no alternative sites available for their project, but that assumes their project is the ONLY WAY to provide assisted living. As I mentioned, they have locked themselves into a single plan and are not willing to look into other WAYS (not sites) to accomplish the goal. Do it at the Truman Waterfront, but do it differently. I was accused of making "invented assertions" -- but their responses try to make the claim that the facility will not be on prime waterfront land! The only thing between the FKACC retirement homes and the water will be park space and the marina. That's about as prime of a waterfront location as I could ever hope for. Who's inventing what here? No matter how you want to shuffle the numbers, the facts are these: Bayshore Manor has 16 affordable assisted living units FKACC's plan has 20 affordable assisted living units FKACC can obfuscate things by claiming that people can share rooms at their facility. That's great, but 20 units are 20 units. In all that nice space, ONLY 20 affordable assisted units! The other 20 assisted units would be at full market cost, which would rule out most all of us. We could never afford those. Why not work to find a way to make all 40 of them affordable? FKACC may be very proud of their 95 "independent living" units (only 8 of which are affordable) that will consume most of the space allotted, but come on: who proposed putting such a "retirement homes" development on the Truman Waterfront? Those units will be out of reach for most of us, so why should WE subsidize them with free land? The FKACC seems to have lost touch with the average member of our community. They're setting most of their focus on the ones with access to larger capital assets. Let's get our focus back on ASSISTED living. AFFORDABLE assisted living. And leave the expensive retirement homes for the developers to make their money on elsewhere. We owe that to our community. David Lybrand Key West

Citizen Letter to the Editor (June 29, 2007)

City can do better than assisted living proposal We need more assisted living in Key West. Bayshore Manor is limited to 16 units. Many of our elderly must leave because they have no one to assist them through their twilight years. The so-called "assisted living" facility pitched for the Truman Waterfront is not the best way to meet this need. Yes, it'll provide more assisted units, but at what cost Is it really the best way? Most of the Florida Keys Assisted Care Coalition project is not for assisted care. Over 70 percent of the units are for independent living -- people who can thrive almost anywhere with occasional extra help. Only 15 percent of the units in this project allow affordable assisted living. FKACC has subverted the Truman Waterfront vision into mostly a glorified retirement community. Since "independent living" is possible almost anywhere, should the city give away prime waterfront land for such a development? Land meant to be enjoyed by us all? Clouding the issue, FKACC calls it an "assisted and independent living facility." A more apt description is: "expensive retirement community with a few affordable assisted living units." The assisted-living component of the project amounts to two smaller buildings on less than an acre. The other approximately five acres FKACC wants will hold almost 100 nice (expensive) units not really much different (other than the beautiful waterfront location) than other nice condos on the island. FKACC preys on emotions with a sales pitch about "care for our elderly" and "don't force them off this island we love." They imply that questioning their plan is akin to senior abuse, to distract from its troublesome details. They insist we can't afford assisted living without subsidy from expensive retirement housing. Really? Our mayor claims to have looked the plan "up and down" and [he] thinks it's fair. However, recently he was convinced we need more transient rentals in Old Town. (Thankfully a judge overruled this.) I'm reluctant to trust his take on this. Commissioner [Jose] Menendez envisions seniors of all means "gazing out at the ocean" as they draw their dying breaths. The FKACC plan is far from that vision. Despite all the free acreage (close to 20 percent of the entire Truman Waterfront), they only find room for four more affordable assisted units than Bayshore Manor provides. If the seniors end up needing substantial medical care, they'll be kicked out, anyway. Is this what you wanted, Jose? Though the FKACC are good people attempting good work for a good cause, they've locked into one plan with no alternatives. The original LRA resolution called for the "request for proposals" process. Where are the others? Why must we vote on one proposal without seeing alternatives? We can do much better. We can provide more than 20 affordable assisted units within this massive scarce waterfront land give-away. Why vote on this without seeing alternatives? If the commission doesn't want this shot down, come up with something as fair as the mayor claims, with more affordable assisted living units. With less waterfront given away for expensive retirement homes. David Lybrand Key West