Geller On Development: “Height Is Your Friend”
BY BUDDY NEVINS
Amid the brickbats being thrown back and forth in the South Broward county commission race is one real issue that divides Steve Geller and Sue Gunzburger.
Gunzburger is for slow growth and has fought against high rises.
Geller believes: “It is environmentally friendly to build high.
That’s what Geller told the Broward Daily Business Review, who printed his views on Feb. 24, 2003 in a revealing front page article.
The article was headlined: “Legislator: Build high, pack ‘em in.
Since candidates in hot races tend to run away from their previous positions, I thought it would be interesting to see what Geller said when he was not running for county commission.
Geller told the business newspaper that he believed in promoting high density in “tightly defined urban-service areas to encourage mass transit. Mass transit trains along the beach?
His theory is by concentrating high rises in a few locations, he would preserve other neighborhoods.
Geller specifically believed in redevelopment along the beach.
“Height is your friend, he told the newspaper.
Geller was a state senator at the time and a lobbyist for Broward developers seeking to build high rises. He tried to push through the Senate bills which would make it easier to build on the beach and in “urban service areas.
Lawyer Debbie Orshefsky explained Geller’s vision to the newspaper: “His goal is to make increased densities almost mandatory.
Orshefsky told the newspaper she backed Geller’s plan. Of course she did. She is a developers’ lobbyist.
I don’t know if Geller’s dream of more towering buildings along the beach is valid. But his vision comes under attack today in the county commission campaign.
The following advertising begins hitting mail boxes Thursday:
July 29th, 2010 at 9:54 am
I’m no fan of Geller, but on this issue he’s more right than wrong.
We’re not going to return to the Broward County of the 1950s (nor would we want to). Our best hope for a livable community is to incorporate smart growth planning, including encouraging the use of mass transit (which becomes feasible as density increases).
As far as the arguments about high rises, once you get above about four stories, what difference does it make. On the beach, I’d rather have higher buildings with smaller footprints.
July 29th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
To Floridian @ 9:54,
The problem with Geller’s theory is that there is no money — NO MONEY– to pay for any of the infrastructure that would relieve the traffic and overcrowding caused by high rise development.
Mass transit cost billions of dollars and is a major failure in Miami-Dade county. It did little to relieve traffic and is an endless money pit living up to none of the promises. There is no way — NO WAY — that residents will allow mass transit on the beaches. So by building high rises, we are dooming residents to more inconvenience and a deteoriation of their way of life.
The beaches should be for everybody, not a select group of condominium buyers who can afford millions for an apartment.
The day Geller gets his fat butt out of his limo and takes a bus is the day I’ll believe him about mass transit.
In additon, where is the water coming from for all these buildings? Or the police and fire? From existsing residents’ increased taxes.
Geller would have more validity if he didn’t earn a paycheck from the development industry as a lobbyist. It colors everything he says about development and means that his vote on the county commission will be bought and paid for.
July 29th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
To Geller Loves Development:
1) I believe I said my comments were not an endorsement of Geller.
2) There is money for mass transit. Unfortunately, most people would rather have an extra couple dozen bucks in their pockets than adequate mass transit (or schools, social services, etc.)
3) No residential high rise is going to be built if the developer cannot insure that an adequate supply of potable water is available. Follow the planning process.
4) You say the beaches should be for everyone. The high rises will not change the public’s access to the beach. Non-public land is zoned for some development already; the public’s access is not increased if the new building is two stories as opposed to 15 stories.
5)You want more public access? Then lobby your city and county governments to purchase beachfront property.
July 29th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
@Floridan says:
“As far as the arguments about high rises, once you get above about four stories, what difference does it make. On the beach, I’d rather have higher buildings with smaller footprints.”
—–
That is, unless it is your 4-story building that is now west of, and blocked by, a 25-story building. Blocks the sun, adds too much traffic, and gives away our coastline to those who can afford the $1MM or more to buy in.
July 29th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Please re-read the story. When Geller made the comments, it was 2003. It was the height of the housing boom and when governments were receiving an influx of cash. Given the context of the time period i.e. 2003, there was plenty of money and support for mass transit.
July 29th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
that was in 2003. It is 7 years later. What does Geller believe NOW? btw- I am AGAINST more density. Enough is enough. Let’s improve/change what we’ve got before we build more, higher, bigger.
July 29th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
“Once you get above about four stories, what difference does it make.”
The difference between Lauderdale-by-theSea and the Galt Ocean Mile is profound. Check it out,sir?
S Only wrote, “What does Geller believe NOW?”
I would like to know now. I’m not sure I would believe anything he says because he would do anything to win. HIS WHOLE CAREER APPEARS TO BE PRO-DEVELOPMENT AT ANY COST.
July 29th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Thanks, Buddy, for doing this research.
July 29th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
At this point I no longer care what Geller has to say. I had an open mind before but the last few weeks were illuminating about his views and character. Here is a simple solution to the beach/density issue:
Vote Yes on Amendment 4 Hometown Democracy to block any density increases.
Vote Gunzburger to block Geller from getting on the commission with his pro-developer views.
It’s the only option with the stakes this high for our community’s future.
August 2nd, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Has anyone actually seen the erosion right up against the footings on the east side of Hallandale’s condo canyon? Why the developers were allowed to build on that fragile land is beyond me.
Thank god there are still places like California’s coastal highway with views of the ocean worth millions in tourist dollars…
My vote is to use that taxpayer money for our seriously underfunded schools where we might actually educate some future environmental scientists to advise future developers.
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed how bad all the candidate choices are this year?
August 4th, 2010 at 9:05 am
Floridan’s comment (these and previously posted) indicate that he/she is a planner for a local municipality, and completely buys into all that APA smart growth blah blah. “2) There is money for mass transit. Unfortunately, most people would rather have an extra couple dozen bucks in their pockets than adequate mass transit (or schools, social services, etc.)
3) No residential high rise is going to be built if the developer cannot insure that an adequate supply of potable water is available. Follow the planning process.
4) You say the beaches should be for everyone. The high rises will not change the public’s access to the beach. Non-public land is zoned for some development already; the public’s access is not increased if the new building is two stories as opposed to 15 stories.
5)You want more public access? Then lobby your city and county governments to purchase beachfront property.”
Lobby your city to spend tax money to but the most expensive property in the county? Yeah, I’m sure most taxpayers will get right on that. Dick.
August 4th, 2010 at 10:57 am
Geller is a lobbyist who’s salary is paid by developers. Who’s side will he be on if he is elected commissioner? Developers who pay him or the people? I think you know the answer.