Blog

REMARKS   34 Total remarks on this post. Add your own remarks below

• February 22nd, 2007 at 10:50 am
  Citizen X

  Considering CSX’s security for it’s eastern boundary is a residential community and that the City of Winter Haven thinks it’s quite okay to rezone this property to Heavy Industrial right next to residential, I am a very confident that both parties really do care for the residents of this area. Wake up and smell the chemicals Polk County. This projects is poorly planned and concieved. Winter Haven is money hungry and is bending over to take a big train from the CSX boys. Soon we’ll all know what it means to be sold cheap.

• February 22nd, 2007 at 11:05 am
  Bob Gernert

  As one who has observed both CSX planning and City of Winter Haven commitment to a quality end result, I would invite Citizen X to have the courage of your convictions and meet with representatives about your concerns. I would be willing to facilitate such a meeting. My phone number is 293-2138 at the Winter Haven Chamber of Commerce.

  The positive potential of this project to bring quality wages and a stronger economic base to Eastern Polk is too great to allow questions and concerns to go unanswered.

• February 22nd, 2007 at 11:45 am
  Citizen X

  Mr. Gernert, I may take you up on that offer. In the mean time, maybe you’d like to explain the logic behind putting heavy industry adjacent to residental. The logic of putting heavy industry in the very area that the City has been approving new residential growth hand over fist over the past five years. Putting a potential hazardous accident within 1.5 mile of a new elementary school. I’m sure once the residents of SE Winter Haven realize that this large, smelly, illuminated industrial beast is but a stone’s throw away from their 1/2 million dollar homes and gated subdivisions, they might disagree with whatever logic you come up with. They just don’t know the whole truth yet. Thankfully, they soon will.

• February 22nd, 2007 at 11:59 am
  Bob Gernert

  I’ve met with CSX officials. Reviewed preliminary site plans. I have seen and heard the City’s requirements for the site. I believe I have a basic understanding of what is planned and the level of expectations.

  On the other hand, you’ve chosen to be “Citizen X” and make unfounded and frankly untrue “sky is falling” statements. For example, the site will handle consumer goods to include electronics, clothing and automobiles … nothing smelly or hazardous there. The railroad tracks on that site have been there for decades and the freight that moves on those rails will be no different with the ILC than it is now.

  The offer to speak face-to-face still stands.

• February 22nd, 2007 at 1:42 pm
  Citizen X

  Again, I will take you up on this offer in the near future.

  However, there is a couple of facts you are overlooking. This facility will be running 24/7. Trains will run continually at an idle, diesel powered fork lifts will always be running, as will the five story cranes. Let’s also mention the waiting diesel semi-trucks idling all day and all night. No smell from that? Not including the petrol products that they will keep on site just to maintain normal operations. This is in stark contrast to a train zipping along the tracks at 40mph or so. Not the same concentration and stagnation as a static site. So please don’t try to compare the two.

  As far as hazardous materials, ask CSX and the City what kind of industries will be looking to move into that nice new 900 acre site. Even a Coca-Cola facility keeps dangerous chemicals on site, for refrigeration purposes. Ask CSX if they will guarantee that no hazardous chemicals will ever be stored or transported with the intermodal cargo at this site.

  Not to make this a long disertation, I’ll skip mentioning in detail light pollution, property devaluation of the nieghboring residential area, security concerns and water contamination prospects.

  Is this project a boon for the City and County? Sure it is. Do I oppose it completely? Not at all. What I oppose is the lack of credible disclosure, the lack of public discussion on the project and the lack of concern for the residents most effected in a negative way by this.

  I do appreciate this forum to bring some of these overlooked issues into the light.

• February 22nd, 2007 at 2:29 pm
  Bob Gernert

  It is just too easy to cast aspersions and innuendo from a position of anonymity. That is a true lack of credible disclosure.

  Once draft site designs are completed (3 to 6 months)and CSX has a sound idea of how the site will be designed and buffered we KNOW that appropriate public forums will take place.

  I’ll await your phone call.

• February 22nd, 2007 at 2:51 pm
  Pam

  Bob, I have read Citizen X’s concerns and your responses. I happen to agree wholeheartedly with Citizen X, by the way I am not Citizen X but I guarantee you CSX will know who I am just by my first name.

  As to meetings with CSX and the City, I have had them to no avail. I have written Rick Hood with CSX asking for written clarification and confirmation that certain chemicals will not now or in the future be on site. This letter was sent by Certified Return Receipt Mail on January 9, 2007 (with copies to David Dickey with the City of Winter Haven and County Commissioner Randy Wilkinson), all letters were received between Jan 10 - 12. As of today, I have had no response from anyone.

  I have since written to David Dickey (with copies to Rick Hood - CSX, Southwest Florida Water Management District, and Randy Wilkinson) on February 2, 2007 (again sent Certified Return Receipt) asking under Florida Statute 119 for copies of the applicaton and all supporting documentation that the City sent to SWFMD where Applicant name is City of Winter Haven, the project name is CSX Intermodal Terminal Site. This letter was received by all between February 5 & 6. Again, no response.

  Now to one thing Citizen X did not mention was the vibration issues. I know what it feels like having semi’s, trains, etc. running…there are going to be vibration issues.

  Lets go further, the City picked this location for the spray field for a reason. The ground leeches well? What do you think is going to happen with all of the semi’s, trains, lifts, equipment, etc. running on this ground around the clock? All vehicles and equipment leak at one time or another. These chemicals (fuel, diesel, gas, grease, oil, and any others that come in) will end up in my surface water to say the least my well water, which by the way is obviously my drinking water.

  As to information about what is coming, I probably have more information than you could possibly want. I have my backup information, supporting documents, etc. When would you like to see it?

• February 22nd, 2007 at 3:30 pm
  Citizen X

  While you were harping on my choice of anonymity, you should have been addressing more of my points. Well Bob, there’s some solid, factual come back from Pam. (PS: if you didn’t want anonymity on your blog, you should get with your webmaster to make some changes)

  The facts are the City and CSX have been partnered for over a year. They are suppose to close on the property and break ground by summer. When do you suppose they’ll be having this appropriate public discussion? Have you been to the planning meetings and the City Commission meetings when all this was approved? Check the records and see what kinds of comments our objections and concerns recieved. I’ve done my research, and apparently so has Pam. Bob, I don’t know how much you have done.

  I’ll keep my eye on this blog and would like to be there when you meet with Pam, if possible.

  Pam, keep up the good work.

• February 22nd, 2007 at 3:52 pm
  Bob Gernert

  Pam,

  I suggest we try to arrange a meeting here at the Chamber sometime during the week of March 5. In the meantime I’m trying to determine the status of your informational requests.

  The Chamber telephone number is 293-2138 and you can reach me at chamber1@winterhavenfl.com.

• February 22nd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
  Bob Gernert

  Citizen X,

  Questions about the ILC are better left to the experts from CSX. As you will recall from my first post I offered to facilitate a meeting with representatives for mutually beneficial two-way communication.

  To that end I am committed and when CSX has the first draft of their design, I believe the appropriate people will come to the table with answers.

  In the meantime I am happy to meet you at your convenience one-on-one. Telephone 293-2138 or chamber1@winterhavenfl.com to arrange. The week of March 5 looks good.

• February 22nd, 2007 at 4:02 pm
  Pam

  Bob, my schedule is open anytime that week expect on Wednesday 7th after 4:00 p. You tell me when and where and I will be there. Citizen X and any others are welcome to my information.

  As to determining the status of my informational requests, why does it appear / seem that I may get my responses after your checking on them. My request to the City is a legal request that again is covered under Florida Statute 119, which is noted in my letter. BY LAW THE CITY HAS TO RESPOND, but it appears that they think they are exempt from this law.

  As they seem to believe the are exempt from other laws, for example notification of zoning changes. As I leave within 500 feet of the ’spray field’ I have never (NOT ONCE) received any notification of City meeting regarding this site and CSX.

• February 23rd, 2007 at 11:52 am
  Bob Gernert

  Pam, I am in receipt of a copy of correspondence sent to you on February 14, 2007 by Sarah Lee Shumate, City of Winter Haven. If you do not receive this correspondence, please contact her at City Hall.

  That being said I will add the following perspective. This blog is a forum for and about business and economic development. As a Chamber of Commerce we support sound economic development opportunities. That is our bias.

  This is not a forum for unfounded claims and speculation. As we have stated in earlier posts we can facilitate communication as CSX plans are more definite. We have provided our contact information.

  I call your attention to our original post where we ask that your comments address the business and economic impact of the CSX project. Please confine your remarks to those matters.

• February 23rd, 2007 at 12:01 pm
  Pam

  Bob, thank you for your help. I will contact Sarah Lee Shumate at the City as I have not heard from her nor have I received anything.

• February 23rd, 2007 at 1:31 pm
  John Martinov

  It’s a shame to see the comments have taken the focus that they have on this post. To keep things on track with the economic impact to the area I think it’s safe to say that in reading this summary that it would be significant.

  If your estimates of 2,500 on-site employees are correct then this facility would be placed on par with Winter Haven Hospital or the City of Lakeland according to the CFDC’s most recent demographic profile. To an area such as Winter Haven, that is significant.

  An increase of $10 million dollars per year in tax revenue would mean a noticeable difference in the available city services. I for one love being able to enjoy quality parks, roads, downtown, and everything that our taxes pay for and could pay much more for with such an increase. The post the Chamber had on what to do with the Chain of Lakes stadium site after the Indians generated some great feedback about parks. Imagine what could be accomplished for a park there with that increased tax base.

  The indirect impact to me as an outside business owner is great as well. This will attract a larger workforce to the area, indirectly helping my recruiting. A project of this breadth also needs help from local businesses and I can see many potential ways to capitalize on this.

  I am in no way in favor of selling our souls for the prospect of some extra money. However, if we are to grow as a community we must take opportunities such as this and embrace them. Find out what they are all about and how we can make Winter Haven an even better place to live. If the opportunity is a recipe for future disaster then I’ll be the first to stand up against, but I’d like to at least see a proposed plan before I throw the baby out with the bathwater.

  I truly sympathize with those who live near the facility and would want to have your quality of life kept in consideration through this process. However, it seems quite selfish to me that an effort such as this that has a potential to affect thousands of lives for many years to come would just be thrown away for people to keep the “country life” while still living near modern conveniences. Let’s try to avoid the “not in my back yard” mentality.

  Change is hard, but let’s give this the opportunity it deserves. I, for one, am excited by the possibility.

• February 23rd, 2007 at 2:21 pm
  Alex

  John,
  I hear you. I am in favor for what is good for the community, but this is happening in my back yard and unfortunately, it is impacting my family and my investment. I am not trying to be selfish, but I do want to protect my interests as well. Wouldn’t you?Based on your comments it appears you may have a selfish motive as well: “The indirect impact to me as an outside business owner is great as well…A project of this breadth also needs help from local businesses and I can see many potential ways to capitalize on this.”
  Let me just say again, I am not against this. I agree with the good that can come of this, but as you stated, our quality of life should be kept a consideration through this process. If our quality of life has been considered, it is news to me.
  I really hope we can all work through this in a positive manner.

• February 23rd, 2007 at 2:36 pm
  John Martinov

  Alex,

  If I am selfish for wanting this area to prosper so that I too, can prosper, then that’s OK. I am but one business of many that will benefit from the possible situation (and one individual of many). I am a firm believer in the greater good. If this means polluted ground water and poor air quality for the City of Winter Haven, then obviously this is not in the best interest of the greater good. There have been no studies or information released that I am aware of to say that this is a factor. As such, the information that is at hand points to a favorable situation.

  It’s a sad fact of life that you can never please everyone. There will be concessions in something of this magnitude. However, if it is built I feel the number of those making the concessions is far less than those being benefited.

  As a home owner I hate to think of someone’s piece of the American dream being sacrificed, but if you look at any major infrastructure project, it’s an unfortunate sacrifice that has to be made. That’s just it, though. A sacrifice. With any growth (whether personal or community) there is sacrifice.
  It’s hard to quantify the potential upswing of something like this because it’s in the future. Whereas you (Alex) can easily quantify for me the direct impact of doing this (noise, traffic, etc). We all just need to be forward thinking enough to see the good that can be in order to not squash this project before it has a fair chance.

• February 23rd, 2007 at 2:43 pm
  Alex

  Just one last comment, I respect the purpose of the original post: to address the business and economic impact of the CSX project. This is a topic that I am passionate about and saw this as an opportunity to voice other concerns.That being said, thank you.

• February 23rd, 2007 at 4:04 pm
  Dee Dee

  John,
  I too live next to the proposed site. In fact, I have the second most track frontage of any single homeowner in our neighborhood. I completely understand the financial impact upon Winter Haven, Polk County and Florida itself. What concerns myself and my neighbors is that it seems that we yes are having to sacrifice for the greater good of the city, county and state with no provisions or contengincies made for us. We are willing to make sacrifices and some of us are willing to move. However, we are not willing to allow our property to be devalued, not solely for the “country lifestyle”, but actual devaluation of our property. And then to be told that we will not be compensated at a replacement value to move.
  I ,too, own a business and will most definitely profit from the growth. But as a mother of 3, I will also say that as long as I feel there is a possible threat to my children’s health, well being and lifestyle, I will fight you and every other business that chose to stand in my way to protect my own. If you are married, ask your wife and you will get the same answer. I had recently been told that the project “will benefit us all” and I’ll get used to it. I’d also get used to having only one leg, I wouldn’t like it, but I could get used to it.

• February 23rd, 2007 at 4:19 pm
  John Martinov

  Dee Dee,

  I have to ask you if the possibility of something such as this happening ever crossed your mind when you purchased property with so much railroad track frontage? Did any of you all consider the possibility of something like this when you purchased homes so close to such a piece of infrastructure?

  Again, I really wanted to keep my post on the topic of this post and focus on the economic benefit we will see from this. Again, my argument is that I’m interested in seeing the facts of what will make the most benefit for the most people. My children and their children may want to continue to make this their home in the future. To do that they need a vibrant economy. So few vibrant economies are stoked from the smoldering embers of a campfire out in the middle of a pasture.

• February 23rd, 2007 at 5:09 pm
  Bob Gernert

  Again, I remind those who post:

  Think of blog comments as a public conversation, as such, keep the language within your comments consistent with public consumption. Please refrain from using profanity, insensitive language or libelous statements. Any comments containing the previous will be removed.

  Please keep your comments consistent with the topic of the original post.

• February 23rd, 2007 at 6:21 pm
  Ed Miller, Jacksonville FL

  As an outsider who does not live in your part of the state I have read everyone’s comments with great interest. I would like to commend all of you for having the fortitude to keep communications flowing, even those who may be adversely impacted. Many of you are square in the middle of this thing, and I sympathize with the decisions you’re having to make about your futures.
  When it hits “home” its a very serious matter. While I don’t have anything truly useful to add, I just wanted you folks to know someone cared enough to wish you well, and I hope things will work out to the benefit of all concerned. God Bless.

• February 23rd, 2007 at 9:55 pm
  Mike Chiavuzzi

  John, apparently you’re not aware that the property CSX is building on was once owned by the Environmental Protection Agency. And you might not be aware that the EPA sold said property to the City of Winter in the late 1970’s (1979 I believe). Since that time the City has used this property as their spray fields for water reclaimation, you know, so the water leaches back in to the aquifer. So I’m wondering why Dee Dee or any of the other residents would think that suddenly heavy industrial “infrastructure” would be constructed there. If anything, following that logic, since there was existing residential property on the east side of the tracks, shouldn’t there have been an assumption that residential be on the west side as well?

  And I would hope that by your comments regarding “smoldering embers of a campfire out in the middle of a pasture” you are not implying that people who choose a country lifestyle do not live in nice homes, are not well educated and are not contributing members of society. I think if you were, I might take offense to that.

  Now back to the economic benefits of this project. Will this bring new jobs and economic growth to the area. Most likely. I question the ability of the City of Winter Haven to manage this growth in terms of keeping the quality of life we all have come to appreciate here. There are many valid concerns with this project that have been expressed throughout this blog. Being that this process started over a year ago, the public discussion has been very limited. Many of the nearby residents are unaware of the magnitude of this endeavor. So lets all insist that the City communicate better with the citizens of the City and County the plans, pros and cons of this project.

  What good is economic growth if we can live with its after taste.

  Thanks

• February 26th, 2007 at 9:13 am
  John Martinov

  Mike,

  If you’ll take a look at the comments, I said “So few vibrant economies are stoked from the smoldering embers of a campfire out in the middle of a pasture.” You know, implying that you get as much economic growth from the middle of an open field as would be expected. You’re the one who said “people who choose a country lifestyle do not live in nice homes, are not well educated and are not contributing members of society.”

• February 26th, 2007 at 10:05 am
  John B.

  In any cost-benefits analysis, both the costs and the benefits must be known to arrive at a reasonable decision.

  In the case of a Chamber of Commerce, the economic benefits are fairly predictable and are being publicized, as would be expected.

  The economic costs are less well known, and are certainly downplayed as this works against the proposal. So naturally the businesses seeking to profit from this venture tell us how great things will be without mentioning the costs or negatives.

  The non-economic costs are what the nearby residents are concerned about, but since they are not appropriate to this blog, those comments are discouraged. From this it appears to them that their voices are being squelched without access to an appropriate public forum. Hopefully, there will be an opportunity to address their concerns where they can have an impact , although it seems that they haven’t had such a venue yet.

• March 6th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
  moe

  the csx project should be welcomed by all residence in lake wales,winter haven and the surrounding area,this will greatly impact the economics of the area for years to come

• April 11th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
  Bill

  It has been indicated that the truck traffic to this facility will be routed from SR 60. Does that also go for the worker traffic that will need acces to it? If so, OK. However, I would like to bring up the crowded conditions already voiced in the media concerning Thompson Nursery Road, SR 653, Eagle Lake Loop Road, Eloise Loop Road, Helena Road, Rifle Range Road, etc. Workers will need to get to this facility and these are the likely access roads, at least from the northern - more populated - side. Factor in the larger crowds attending Cyprus Gardens, especially for the weekend concerts, and the possibilities for grid lock become astounding!
  Not many of theses roads are city streets. Most are county maintained. It is my opinion that the entire SE Winter Haven area needs vast up-grades on roads due to the massive infestation of development and now this industrial beheamouth. What does the county bring to the table for this industrial windfall? It certainly stands to gain handsomely!
  When was the last time anyone looked for a decent sized park in all of SE Winter Haven? With all of this growth, where is the library branch being located? Post office branch?
  Yes, I know I’m going to be chastized for being off topic, but I’ve lived in the mentioned SE Winter Haven area for over twenty years and none of these aminities have been added or major road improvements, except the widening of CGB - and it opened the flood gates for all of this development.

• April 30th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
  bill

  it is obvios that thi web site is pro csx you don’t want to post negative csx info sorry for the lack of free speech in this country GOD BLESS MY USA

• May 4th, 2007 at 5:45 am
  Dee Dee Chiavuzzi

  I do believe some type of park is planned along with the CSX project. At least I’ve heard the rumor of it.
  As far as the roads go, Pollard Road which runs off of Eloise Loop will be the worker entrance for the CSX site, yet again, that’s what we’ve been told. I believe the roads are mostly county, but almost all taxes will go to the city of Winter Haven. Imagine that. County residents being left with the bill.
  I think a bigger picture that most people arent’t seeing is the city has allowed the site to be rezoned to Heavy Industrial 2, all within a mile to mile and a half of dozen SE Winter Haven neighborhoods as well as our new elementry school.

• May 4th, 2007 at 6:38 am
  Bob Gernert

  The map presented with this post indicates a 100-acre park is proposed for the northernmost section of the property. While significant tax revenues will be generated, the Polk Public Schools and State stand to realize as much revenue as the City of Winter Haven.

• May 9th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
  tdb

  I believe that purchasing 318 acres in order to fall short of the 320 which would require a comprehensive study is very suspicious. Can you explain this to me? Is this question not addressed in the CSX Public Relations Script? Why would CSX and the City want to avoid such an impact study? What requirements are being avoided by being so clever? Our city fathers are looking out for us, aren’t they?

• May 13th, 2007 at 9:04 am
  Joey

  To Bob Gernert,
  This is in reference to the traffic issues brought up by Bill.
  What are the plans for Helena Road in relation to the CSX project, Cypress Station and Cypress Gardens traffic?
  Cypress Station is being built directly in front of my house and I and other neighbors are worried about the impact on traffic in the area. It’s hard getting to and from our home and with the possibility of CSX trucks and workers we are afraid it will only get worse, and if it does I might have to put up a traffic light at my driveway to be able to get in and out.
  Sorry about being off topic.

• May 13th, 2007 at 10:46 am
  Bob Gernert

  There have been discussions regarding realignment of Helena at the south end of the theme park but nothing concrete at this time.

  Primary access to Cypress Station and Towne Center will be from CG Boulevard though traffic counts on Helena will likely increase.

  CSX trucks are to access that site from Highway 60. Weight limits will further restrict large vehicles especially with regard to the bridge on Helena. The CSX facility will impact you far less than growth along Cypress Gardens Boulevard. Helena is a county road at present and any improvements will likely become a part of their planning process.

• May 13th, 2007 at 11:17 am
  Jean Reed

  The 100 acre park would be very much needed and could provide a buffer between residential and industrial - a sign of good planning.
  Unfortunately the Eloise Loop Road realignment plan will most likely go through the middle of this land set aside for a park. Additionally, some of that park parcel is sand scrub - a land type which is preserved as much as possible in its natural state. Most of rest of the land has tall pines.
  Is Winter Haven planning a nature type park here, or is it intended as an active park?

• May 14th, 2007 at 9:28 am
  Bob Gernert

  Commissioner Reed, I wanted to provide the most current information regarding plans for this park. The City of Winter Haven is in the midst of master planning future park needs. Here is the current status as provided by T. Michael Stavres, Director of Community Services.

  The City does have plans for a new “regional” park to be located in southeastern Winter Haven. We are focusing at this point on the 100+ acres located due north of the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant III along Pollard Road (hence this project being frequently referenced to as “The Pollard Road Site/Park”.)

  Earlier this spring, the City entered into contract with HHI, Inc. (Orlando) for the completion of a Park, Recreation & Open Space Master Plan. The goal of this initiative is to evaluate the current park, recreation and open space infrastructure in Winter Haven, compare it against recent and anticipated growth patterns and develop a plan for new park construction and re-purposing of existing facilities to best meet the needs of the community over the next 10-20 years. In addition, to staff input and in-house data collection, public meetings and specialized focus group sessions where held in March to gather input from the community at large. Staff anticipates receiving the “Findings Report” in late June. This report will be a summary of the data collected and input provided by the community. The final Master Plan document is anticipated to be complete in late August of this year. This plan will identify not only what types of parks, recreation and open space infrastructure are needed, but also where they should be constructed to best meet the needs of the community as a whole.

  Although this may seem unrelated to the initial question of what type of park will be constructed, it is actually the first step in answering that question. We (the City) need to have a good understanding of what is needed and where it is needed before we start building anything. It is our intent that the Master Plan will help pinpoint what types of facilities should go on this particular site. Our thought at this time is that the site will likely support both active and resource-based recreational amenities.

  With respect to the environmental conditions on the Pollard Road Site, any recreation improvements will be consistent with the existing conditions. Any active recreation deemed appropriate for the geographic area of Pollard Road (or any other site for that matter)will be limited to areas within the park that are capable of supporting the amenity without impacting environmentally sensitive areas. For those areas that are environmentally sensitive (i.e. Scrub communities), recreational amenities will be limited to resource based activities only (i.e. nature paths, educational displays, passive picnic areas, vistas, etc.)

  In addition, the re-alignment of Thompson Nursery Road / Eloise Loop Road may also have an impact on what and how amenities can be placed on this particular site.

ADD REMARKS (please be civil)