Honesty is a gate that swings both ways, but there are exceptions. In this case, it appears obvious that two critics opposed to the proposal are running for office, and politics being what it is, an agenda is connected to positions on the Royal Palm Beach Village Council, while those in support of the proposal are not running for office.
Having said that, proof to the contrary by supporters of a political connection are invited to submit it.
When legal reasons are confused with legal requirements, it further adds a modicum of non-clarity to the issue.
To recap: the land in the proposal is a scant walking distance from a site adjacent to the Royal Inn, where a gas station previously existed but closed during the widening of a commercial corridor — Southern Blvd.
The interpretation and burden of deciding whether a variance requirement must be satisfied rests with the Village of Royal Palm Beach, and failing that remedy, with the courts.
Historically, it is going to be difficult to block this proposal from going forward almost on the site of a previously approved gas station.
Some argument could be made over the number of pumps in the new gas station, but this fails due to the number of pumps in the previous station (4 to 6 pumps), previously approved adjacent to what was then a 46-room Royal Inn. It is reasonable to assume that since the Royal Inn is now a resort hotel with four times the rooms, next to a commercial route (Southern Blvd.), that more pumps would be appropriate.
No other “legal” reason other than what has been addressed was given by any opponent of the proposal.
Ah yes, taxpayer money, a red herring if ever there was one! Panic statements like road changes and access off of a commercial corridor, and somehow this is being given as some kind of “unusual” circumstance never seen in other locations. No mention of any road changes in any of the neighboring gas stations, like Costco or the gas station at Crestwood Square, or that the increased taxes paid by the new facility may in any way be an offset, so one can conclude that this argument has been unfairly presented.
There appears to be a great deal of opinion mixed for the reason for the demise of the two banks previously on the land being discussed, and while people have a right to their own opinions, they don’t have a right to their own facts!
Finally, to disagree without being disagreeable is a literary art form lost on the politically ambitious, and the substitution of personal reflection on anyone not sharing your opinion demonstrates weakness of argument and shifts the discussion away from any meaningful solution of differences.
Richard Nielsen, Royal Palm Beach