by Strawberry Jam | Jan 24, 2011 | News
By Strawberry Jam
After decades of tug-of-war over how to redevelop quaint Hollywood Beach and increase revenue, the city has decided to sign a 99-year lease to a Jimmy Buffet Margaritaville complex. The project, which will cost an estimated $130 million, will supposedly be funded by foreign investors in exchange for a green card– what?!
It may be somewhat understandable that some sort of revamping is necessary for Hollywood Beach, especially if business owners feel so, but Margaritaville, really? People drive from near and far to this beach for its old school feel and to enjoy a $1.50 soft-serve while checking out the Canadians. 349 hotel rooms, 35,000 feet of convention space, a wave pool, restaurants, an entertainment venue, a new parking garage, marina and beach cabanas just don’t seem to add up with that equation. I don’t think I’m going overboard when I say that the majority of this beach’s visitors come for reasonably priced food and drink, relaxation, and, gasp!, the beach.
City officials and others have long argued that HWB needs to be more like Ft Lauderdale Beach or South Beach but wouldn’t it make sense that if that’s what consumers were after they would be exactly there- Ft Lauderdale or Miami? Who decides this stuff? I hereby solemnly swear to never step foot in Margaritaville. Read these Miami Herald comments and you’ll find I’m not the only one who feels this way. To reiterate my own thought… “If other hotels on the beach are called “eyesores” and The Hollywood Beach Hotel is a “sleepy white elephant” what would you call a giant concrete building with parking garage and restaurants, a screaming rhinoceros? If this is going to be a trend in development this is going to contribute to the downfall of this beach’s charm and drive the people that currently flock to it away. What’s so great about a chain? What’s so great about bigger and better? That mentality and the popular belief “go big or go home” are the reason why the country is the way it is now. In a time when things get worse and worse and people are losing their jobs I think people genuinely enjoy places that still remind them of better days.”
At least we can breathe a sigh of relief that the Bandshell remains safe… for now.
by Fat Hand | Dec 6, 2010 | News
by Fat Hand
Great news for downtown Ft. Lauderdale folks that like to eat: our sources tell usthat Creolina’s is moving back to Himmarshee Village! The soon-to-be reopened restaurant reportedly will be taking over Porterhouse’s old digs at the corner of Himmarshee and, uh, the train tracks (I really don’t know the name of that alley…Voodoo Junction? Rodman Road?).
Creolina’s was a long-time downtown favorite, known for its insanely good cajun inspired grub and was located just a door or two down from its supposed new location, in what is now part of that completely unnecessary Club 13 / El Carnivale duo of bars adjacent to Latino Fire. This FTL Collective beat-writer shed more than one tear when the original incarnation closed in 2008, after which it reopened in Davie with a slightly different format.
As of Sunday, December 5 there was no physical evidence that Creolina’s has taken over the spot, as the old Porterhouse menu remains posted outside. Porterhouse’s Facebook page says “Watch for the “GRAND OPENING” of a whole new food and entertainment experience on 2nd in downtown Fort Lauderdale!” and “Bourbon on 2nd, anyone? Stay tuned for big news!” Please Facebook you god-of-the-internet, let our sources be sober and accurate with the news that a new Creolina’s is on the horizon.
by Miguel Bravo | Nov 5, 2010 | News
The Sun-Sentinel has completely ignored an important local story with a wrinkle of national importance occurring in a high-profile Ft. Lauderdale trial. The incompetence of the local prosecutor’s office in the Jim Leyritz trial has gone unnoticed by the (admittedly undermanned) Sun-Sentinel news room. The Sun-Sen has covered the trial to some extent, but has ignored a story of more general relevance than if Jim Leyritz is ultimately convicted: whether our prosecutor’s office is competent to try such a case.
Background: Former New York Yankee World Series hero Jim Leyritz is on trial for DUI manslaughter for a terrible accident that occurred downtown just under three years ago at the corner of Himmarshee and SW 7th Avenue. A local young mother of two named Fredia Veitch was ejected from her car and died during the collision. Jim Leyritz was drunk, and as has been well-reported, Ms. Veitch was too. A vital pre-trial motion had the judge ruling that evidence of her intoxication was inadmissable during Leyritz’s trial. Basically, the ruling was that Ms. Veitch’s condition is irrelevant to whether Leyritz was intoxicated while committing a traffic violation, and whether that violation resulted in Ms. Veitch’s death. That means that evidence, testimony, whatever, of her condition would not be before the jury.
Now for the trial, which after jury selection last week, began on Monday. The Sun-Sen reported on the beginning of the trial. But on Tuesday there was a bomb: a series of apparently 15-20 questions that Leyritz’s lawyer, famed local defense attorney David Bogenschutz, asked of the prosecution’s witness regarding the extent to which Ms. Veitch had been drinking that night. Tom Francis, formerly and regrettably not still, a fantastic local reporter for the Broward New Times (see our tongue in cheek take-down of the New Times and Tom Francis, here), reported for the New York Post that Bogenschutz asked a series of un-objected-to questions of a prosecution witness that had been with Ms. Veitch on the evening in question regarding her level of intoxication. And the witness’ testimony was that he had seen her drink four or five shots, and there was another 45 minutes during which she had been at the bar while he was absent during which she may have consumed more drinks. Word to the prosecution: THIS IS THE EVIDENCE YOU FOUGHT TO HAVE EXCLUDED. Maybe this wasn’t the toxicology report they specifically discussed in the pretrial motion, but this is the same. The judge’s ruling had been that her condition was not important. This testimony is evidence of her condition. One objection from the prosection and this entire line of questioning, the whole concept of the victim being intoxicated, would never be heard by the jury. But that did not happen. And then the prosectution even asked the witness about Ms. Veitch’s condition at the Himmarshee St. bar Fat Cats, at which point the judge stopped the trial and sent the jury out of the courtroom. As Mr. Francis reports the judge angrily asking the prosecutor:
“Do you consider her condition relevant? He [Bogenschutz] asked 15 to 20 questions about what drinks she had, unobjected, and now you’re asking about her condition. My ruling is that her condition was not relevant as to whether the defendant ran the red light.”
But that’s not all. Later, according to Tom Francis, another prosecution witness, Leyritz’s passenger at the time of the crash, testified that the light was definitely yellow when they entered the intersection, not that he had seen the light turn from green to yellow to red as the prosecutor promised in her opening statement. I do not know the background, I do not know what the witness told the prosecutor’s investigators and whether he should have been treated as a hostile witness, but it is a failure of lawyering when one of your key witnesses testifies the exact opposite of what you want, expect, and promised the jury the witness will say.
I am not writing this column to comment on whether Ms. Veitch’s intoxication should be allowed in the trial, nor whether her intoxication is important as to who is responsible for the accident. That is for the judge to decide, and he did decide prior to the beginning of the trial. Nor am I passing a judgment on Jim Leyritz’s guilt. My point is that the prosection in this high-profile case, which surely was not run by first year attorneys trying a standard DUI case, has been incompetent. The vital issue of Ms. Veitch’s intoxication, which the judge specifically excluded from the trial because of its tendancy to sway the jury, very well could determine the outcome of this trial. And, in fact, I predict it will determine the outcome. For the last three years I thought Leyritz had no chance after learning of his .14-.18 BAC. But the state’s attorney’s office performed incompetently at an extremely important moment of this trial, and the Sun-Sentinel has yet to mention it. This issue could be the whole trial and it was not mentioned in our local paper-of-record! I don’t know what else to say.
But I will try: today the Sun-Sen finally posted another article about the trial. The headline is “Ex-Yankee Sobs During Trial”. It describes potentially important evidence of a video showing the accident may have ocurred ten minutes earlier than police records report and that Jim Leyritz cried (thanks for the headline and the details). For the defense the tape is apparently evidence that Leyritz’s drinks at the bar might not have hit his blood at the time of the crash, or something. Brilliant lawyering by Bogenschutz, standard. But regardless of what the judge’s jury instructions might ultimately command the jury to ignore, it’s hardly the case-changer that allowing the victim’s condition to be described to the jury may turn out to be.
Unreported.
– Fat Hand
