What's New in PCB – Pier Park Down to the Wire (video)

With the grand opening of the Boardwalk area of Pier Park on Thursday the 14th, crews are working almost around the clock to get everything done. I left town on Thursday of last week only to return on Sunday with sidewalks complete, landscaping almost done and the interior of several retailers nearing completion. I saw training happening at Five Guys and Buffalo Wild Wings.

I still haven’t seen a final list of the stores opening on Thursday, but the most recent press release lists the following to open in February/March: click the “more” link for the list and video.

Continue reading “What's New in PCB – Pier Park Down to the Wire (video)” →

Information on Airport Relocation Opposition

The main argument in the Panama City Bay County Airport relocation is the possibility of causing irreparable damage to sensitive environmental areas. Currently construction is being held up by a law suit against the FAA regarding their Record of Decision approving the construction of the new airport that was issued in September 2006.

Quote from the Record of Decision:

“In conducting its funding analysis, FAA determined that both physical and environmental restrictions at the existing site make it impractical and extremely costly to update to meet FAA standards.

The existing primary air carrier runway is 6,304 feet long with nonstandard safety areas. Even if FAA were to upgrade the existing site, it would not result in an airfield that fully complied with FAA standards.”

In a press release on November 14th, 2006, Melanie Shepherdson, attorney at the NRDC, is quoted, “The FAA’s decision to build this ‘airport to nowhere’ is illegal. . . The law is clear: The agency has to pick the alternative that is least damaging to the environment. And it failed to do that.”

What alternative is least damaging? Modifying the current site to bring it into compliance with current FAA safety regulations? The environmentalist groups protested that option years ago; this is one of the main reasons the Airport Authority began looking for a new site in the first place. It was determined early on that the damage extending the current runway would cause was far too great to risk.

Another argument the opposition loves is that the airport will spur growth and development in the West Bay area (duh, and that’s a bad thing?), but that it will destroy the natural home for various wildlife, including Florida Black Bears, sea turtles, dolphins, and more. BUT, they fail to acknowledge that most of the shoreline in West Bay will be conservation as part of a 9,000 acre donation dedicated for conservation/mitigation, AND they fail to acknowledge participation of Audubon of Florida, The Florida Wildlife Federation, 1000 Friends of Florida and The Nature Conservancy in the organization of the West Bay Sector Plan. These are all environmentalist groups concerned about the environmental well being of the West Bay Area.

For more arguments and explanations, visit Dr. Ed Wright’s WestBayFlorida Blog. If you scroll down and look for the “Labels”. He has enough information on the relocation to keep you busy reading for weeks.

Thanks, Ed, for all your hard work.

TDC/CVB Indian Summer Festival Meeting – January 3, 2008

The Indian Summer Festival Committee met on January 3^rd, 2008 to discuss the CVB’s options for the 2008 festival. The festival is quite different from other special events receiving CVB financial support in that it is actually owned by the TDC/CVB. The committee is a subcommittee made up of 4 members of the CVB’s Marketing Committee (Kirk Lancaster-chairman, Jack Bishop, Ann Henry, and Joe Kennedy) all of whom were present. The subcommittee will make their recommendation to the Marketing Committee, which will then make their recommendation to the CVB Board.

The meeting was chaired by Lancaster in an open workshop fashion with extensive input from the audience. The audience included CVB Board Members Andy Phillips and Buddy Wilkes. The discussion included:

The history of the event that originally was operated by a local committee with the support of local charities. More recently the CVB operated it in-house for two years before hiring Sound Associates/Ron Johnson as festival promoter for the past few years. The CVB exercised it’s right to cancel the 2008 contract with Sound Associates.
The importance of the festival attracting non-residents, rather than just being a local draw, if the CVB continues to provide financial support. There was a clear consensus that the 2007 festival was mainly a local festival that attracted few out-of-area visitors. However, some expressed their belief that tourists rarely travel to any festivals today. Past successful tourist marketing efforts, including the Winn-Dixie program arranged by past president Bob Warren, were also discussed.
Who should run the festival? President Rowe advised the subcommittee that the CVB lacks sufficient staff to operate the festival in-house.
What the elements of the festival should be? This included the type of music and whether the festival should seek big-name performers or performers with a lower cost and a corresponding lower admission charge. Also discussed was the appropriate type of food vendors for the festival. Some voiced opinions that the festival had too many carnival-type vendors and not enough local restaurants, while others were of the belief that carnival-type food was an important element. The difficulty of local restaurants operating in a temporary location and the possibility of building permanent vendor facilities to alleviate these problems was also mentioned.
Whether there was enough support in the tourist industry to make the festival happen? Traditionally, the festival has relied on financial sponsorships from the tourist-oriented businesses; however, some past sponsors have expressed their disappointment over the value being received. The possibility of engaging the tourist industry in marketing discount packages that include lodging, tickets, and other elements was also suggested.
The date of the event and the importance of considering the dates of other festivals in the southeast. The event was originally held every 2^nd weekend of October. Recently it was held on Columbus Day weekend, but this past year it was moved to the following weekend to better fit the schedule of the festival promoter.
What type of control the CVB should retain over the festival’s elements, operation, and advertising?

Although no formal vote was taken, the consensus of the subcommittee was to turn the matter over to President Rowe to prepare a RFP for distribution to potential festival operators. Rowe plans to distribute a survey to local businesses, to speak with other CVBs, and to review prior RFPs to provide additional assistance. The sub-committee will consider Rowe’s draft RFP at their next meeting that has not yet been scheduled.

Update on Airport Construction Progress

I’ve been getting a lot of emails asking what is going on with the airport relocation. Here is what’s going on:

11/29/2007 – Federal judge in New York issued an order to temporarily block construction. The NRDC has also threatened a separate suit against the Army Corps of Engineers’ issuance of the 404 permit.
Court date of December 18th was set to determine how “permanent” the stay would be.
12/4/2007 – Airport Board approved funding for around $100 million.
12/10/2007 – December 18th hearing post-poned to January 8th because one of the three judges recused himself
Costs associated with the block of construction are estimated to be in excess of $1 million per month.
12/17/2007 – Three judge panel mandated that the airport authority could authorize “preliminary construction work” that includes preparing the site for construction, surveying the property, identifying wetlands, erecting fencing, perform maintenance of existing roadways and placing of construction trailers. Work to begin January 2nd.
Court hearing set for January 23rd.

That is all I have for now. Randy, or anyone else on the airport authority board, feel free to email me with more information if you like.

Pier Park Pictures – 75 retailers announced

With over 75 retailers announced and more to be announced in the near future, the progress at Pier Park is smoking. I’ve been onsite taking pictures every one to two weeks and I still seem to be getting passed up. I can’t keep up with how quick they are working.

The official Grand Opening for The Boardwalk is on schedule for February 15th, 2008 and will include anchors Margarittaville, Ron Jon Surf Shop, Borders Books and Music, Dillard’s, Fresh Market, JCPenney, and Old Navy. Panera Bread, Target and The Grand Movie Theater are already opened. For those of you who are locals and have not eaten at Panera Bread, I highly recommend it. My wife and I frequent it often and love it.

One of the things that I love about Pier Park is that it isn’t just another shopping mall. The architectural detail and the strategic layout of the entire project is goaled at making you feel good about being there. Paul Adjaharian, Vice President for Simon Property Group, says that it is the goal of Pier Park to make you feel good when you are there, the buying will take care of itself. Pier Park will be a place for people to gather and spend time with one another and family. I know my wife and I will be spending plenty of time there.

One place I can’t wait to spend money at is Margaritaville. I’m looking forward to eating on the second floor terrace watching the sunset over the Gulf of Mexico. The City Pier sunsets are awesome.

Click here for an entire list of announced tenants and a basic map as to where they will be located.

Click here for all the information I have on Pier Park.

Also, below are some pictures that I took on Tuesday.

I’m currently working on the story board for my next Pier Park movie. I’m hoping to start shooting that this week and have the video done by the first or second week in January.

Airport Relocation Non-Binding Referendum Vote Stats

I was looking for some specifics on the non-binding referendum vote on the airport relocation, and I found it. The vote was placed on the ballot for the Democratic Presidential Primary on March 9th, 2004.

Randy Curtis, the Executive Director of the Panama City – Bay County Airport and Industrial District was gracious enough to provide the details:

The question on the ballot was as follows:

TITLE: Non-binding referendum question on the Bay County citizenry’s desire to relocate the existing Airport. Do you favor future relocation of the Panama City Bay   County International Airport at no cost to the Bay County taxpayer?

The statement that I hear quoted most often regarding this vote is that “an overwhelming majority of Bay County voters voted against airport relocation”. The results of the vote taking into consideration the total number of registered voters in Bay County was as follows:

Yes                                       9,500                    10.556%
No                                        11,051                   12.280%
Over Vote                                   2                      0.002 %
Under Vote                              79                       0.088%
Did not vote                       69,360                   77.074%
Total registered voters    89,992                100.000%

It is obvious that the majority of registered voters decided for whatever reason not to vote. I have several concerns regarding this vote. First, the FAA had not completed nor released the results of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS was an in-depth analysis of the airport relocation project that was conducted independently by the FAA. In the EIS, numerous alternatives including expansion of the existing airport site, joint use with Tyndall AFB, relocation to various sites in and around Bay County, and a “do nothing” alternative, were evaluated in great detail. One could question whether or not the voters had adequate information to make an informed decision since the EIS and other critical studies had not been completed when the election was held.

Another comment regarding the vote is that it was not fully representative of those that use and pay for the Airport. Two-thirds of the passengers that use the current Airport are not Bay County citizens. They are either visitors that are traveling to this area or citizens of counties outside of Bay County. This fact is also the basis for my comment that the majority of those that pay for the airport were not represented. The Airport District does not receive any monies directly or indirectly from local taxes to pay for the operation and development of the airport. The funds that do pay for the airport come from aviation user fees collected by the state and federal governments and revenues generated directly by the Airport Authority. The federal and state governments collect various user fees from passenger ticket sales, aviation fuel taxes, car rental surcharges, and other aviation services. These monies are placed in trust funds and are distributed to airports in the form of grants to be used primarily for aviation infrastructure development. The Airport Authority receives revenue from airport tenants such as airlines, fixed base operators, rental car agencies, parking, concessions (gift shop, restaurant, lounge, advertising, etc.),and other businesses that operate at the airport. The basic premises is that these companies pay for the right to conduct business at the airport and we in turn provide the aviation facilities that allow them to operate.

One might argue that the airport is indirectly subsidized by local tax payers that provide municipal services. However, in this regard the airport authority has its own police and fire departments funded directly by the authority. We pay for utilities (water, sewer, trash, natural gas, electricity) the same as any other business. The bottom line is that the airport is funded by the users of the airport who pay the user fees to the state and federal government and use the services of the businesses that operate at the airport. The majority of those that use and pay for the airport did not have an opportunity to vote since they are not Bay County citizens.

In regard to public input as to whether or not the airport should be relocated, the Airport Board took into consideration many factors. Certainly the non-binding referendum was taken into consideration; however it must be placed in proper context as noted above. The Board also took into consideration public input that was provided at more than 125 public hearings, workshops, and other public meeting that were held over the past 10 years. The Board took into consideration dozens of resolutions and letters of support for the project received from area municipalities, elected officials, chambers, tourist development councils, economic development organizations and other groups. Numerous permitting and regulatory agencies (FAA, US Army Corps of Engineers, FDOT, FDEP, Florida Department of Community Affairs, Bay County and many others) conducted in-depth analysis of the project. Likewise, their input was an important consideration as the Board decided whether or not to move forward with this project.

Thank you Randy, I know this answered some questions that I had. I hope that it will help educate the public as well.

This week in Pier Park – Pictures

Pier Park is getting very close to completion. I love the bright colors and the architectural accents. Margarittaville is really starting to take shape, you can now see the sunset outside dining deck (on the second floor). Also, there is considerable construction taking place at the back of the property towards Back Beach Road. More pictures to come soon.