By Mike Phillips
So here we go again.
Yet another well-respected engineering firm has told Fernandina Beach that the substructure under Brett’s Waterway Cafe, a popular tourist destination in the middle of the city’s marina, is a hazard.
It flunked last year’s inspection and just flunked this year’s inspection. Both firms clearly and forcefully said the Brett’s building should be closed to the public until made safe. This year’s firm said the situation is even worse this year than last year.
Last year, the city tried to close Brett’s but ultimately backed down when smart lawyers caught it in a procedural error. This year, it just backed down.
Well, not quite. This year, the head of the building department did issue some orders that at least make a bow toward public safety. But if you were expecting a more vigorous response, your own response should be to cross your fingers.
Finger-crossing is a form of gambling practiced by people who can’t do anything else. But the city clearly has both the right and the obligation to do the right thing and close the Brett’s building until it has been made safe or demolished.
Demolition would be the best course.
As the city pursues its riverfront stabilazation project from Atlantic Seafood on around to Alachua Street, it will have to demolish the Brett’s building anyway. That’s the only way to take out the deteriorating concrete under Brett’s and build a seawall that will protect downtown from flooding as ocean levels rise.
And if you think wet feet downtown won’t destroy Fernandina’s tourism – well, don’t bother arguing with city leaders, business leaders and the doughty crew at the Observer.
Everybody knows what the long-term solution is. But what about short-term? The short-term challenge is — try not to be surprised — money. The Brett’s lease has two years to run. It would cost the city a million dollars and some change to buy the tenant out.
But that’s not the only problem. The new commission clearly thinks it’s smarter than previous commissions. So it isn’t likely to do anything that it suspects previous commissions of endorsing.
And yet, there is a potential public safety disaster sitting right in the middle of the marina. The forces undermining Brett’s foundations don’t care about politics. They will just keep eroding away.
Until something happens.
—
The opinions expressed in commentaries belong only to the author.
Good review of the situation. Public Safety should guide decisions. Now or in the near future would be an excellent time to design a first class waterfront that would be a destination in and of itself, as well as meet the need to control rising waters.
A million dollars is not chump change. But when compared to the multi millions of dollars that might be levied from a potential lawsuit if there was a catastrophe – sure seems like a bargain. And then there is the PR of the whole thing. What will tourists think of a city administration that knowingly did not do everything it could to prevent a tragedy? What would the city’s and the restaurant group’s insurance companies think of all of this? If an insurance company would cancel the city over this, how likely is it that future insurance will not sky rocket well beyond the current rates? And who pays for all these questionable decisions and potential negative outcomes. You guessed it. Taxpayers!
Look no further than the contract the owners have with the city. Once you understand how and why the city gets 5% of 5% of the revenue instead of 5% you will understand why this is such a fiasco.
Once the city gets out of the business of picking and choosing who benefits and who doesn’t we will all be better off.
Alan, the city’s share is actually 5% of the 6% the Centre Street Restaurant Group gets of Brett’s revenue or stated another way 0.3% of the revenue. As to being a fiasco, defenders of the contract point out that CSRG assumed the mortgage on the building and other related expense and the city was only providing essentially a triple-net ground lease. I don’t know the value of the financial obligation assumed by CSRG so I can’t evaluate the reasonableness of their 6% share, but the share given to the city clearly is way under market value for such prime riverfront property. It is a myth said by some that there was a misunderstanding of the contract in that the city thought they were getting 5% of Brett’s revenue and CSRG was getting 1%, but there is an Exhibit in the contract that clearly shows how the revenue will be divided.
We will be better off if they close. Either fix it or not but stop putting the public at risk
Don’t wait until it’s too late…
If, I understand the situation correctly: the city owns the property, the Centre Street Restaurant Group (CSRG) (people from south Jacksonville) has a contract with the City to use the site, and Bretts has a contract with CSRG for the restaurant. The contract between the City and CSRG requires that CSRG maintain the property in good condition and keep sufficient insurance to eliminate a liability to the City. Since the property has NOT been maintained in good condition, it would appear to me (I’m not a lawyer) that the contract with the City is null and void. The City has a long history of not inspecting property it leases out so it is no surprise that compliance issues exist. Also, since the City has been notified, by multiple engineers (I am an engineer), that a structural issue exists and the City has not taken action to midigate the potential loss of life due to failure. The City would share the liability should a failure occur. This is not a good situation for the patrons of Bretts and the tax payers of Fernandina Beach.
Joe, not quite the full story. The engineering structure potential failure issues involve support structures on both the leased property (CSRG to Brett’s) as well as the City property outside the leasehold. The engineering report shows of the five most serious structure points under the complete structure, 2 are within the leasehold footprint and the other 3 are outside and therefore the city’s responsibility. There have been conflicting engineering reports as to the seriousness of the structure damage and a couple of years ago the city agreed to abide by the decision of a third engineering study by a company selected with the approval of both groups. That study came back generally in favor of CSRG that the building was in immediate danger but that remediation work should be undertaken that should last through the expiration of the lease. The City’s effort to close the building as unsafe ended up in court and the court ruled that the city’s BOA hearing was flawed because there were some violations of the stated process and the BOA’s decision was deemed invalid. To this day I have never heard an explanation as to why the City didn’t go back and conduct another hearing ensuring the process was followed correctly and see if they could get a supporting decision.
As noted in this report, the City also has an obligation to close off sections of the structure outside of the leasehold footprint that I don’t believe it has done in the past despite the reports creating a double standard. My understanding is that there were discussions about a possible buyout of the lease but the demand by CSRG/Brett’s was far in excess of what the city valuation was.
When something happens, everyone will say “Why didnt we know”