Did downtown Panama City lose when Joey Chapman, the owner of the Marie Hotel, won?
We certainly hope not but the future is unclear.
The plan to demolish the Marie Hotel and build a new structure with affordable housing for seniors on the top levels and retail space on the bottom floor was approved by the Panama City’s Community Redevelopment Agency in a 4-1 vote. The CRA is made up of the current city commissioners and it is expected that the commission will also approve the development in January.
WHAT'S YOUR VIEW? WRITE US A LETTER.
Chapman spent much of this year wrangling with the commission over his plans for his property. The commissioners said they were attempting to make sure Chapman followed the city’s ordinances but their reluctance to sign off on the plan came just as city officials were finalizing a massive redevelopment of the Panama City Marina. City officials also heard from several business owners in the area who felt that affordable housing would be detrimental to growth in downtown Panama City.
While affordable housing is important — a report from Freddie Mac says the typical monthly mortgage payment for a Bay County home is out of reach for the typical Bay County family — Panama City is already carrying too much of the county’s affordable housing burden. So we’re sympathetic, and shared the hopes of those looking for The Marie Hotel to be transformed into a shopping center or a chic residential space for affluent residents.
But we aren’t the owners of the property, and neither are the project’s detractors.
Everybody hopes that downtown Panama City will be as successful as Pier Park and in our view that can’t happen until someone is willing to take a big risk on developing Harrison Avenue. As we have often stated the marina project seems to be that risky venture that will hopefully pay off.
The plans for the Marie Hotel hopefully won’t throw any wrenches into the plans for the Panama City Marina. And, if commissioners are concerned about the marina then that is all the more reason for them to move as quickly as possible on picking the best developer for that project and setting fast and fair timetables for getting the work done.
Despite these concerns we still believe the commissioners didn’t have much choice but to approve the development. Barring any new information it appears that Chapman followed Panama City’s ordinances for demolishing the old structure and building a new one. And while this project may not be what some people wanted, if it is within the rules it is within the rules.
Clearly, Chapman believes that this will be the best and most profitable use of a property that sat idle for decades. That is a business decision. Those who think he is wrong about that have an obligation to either convince Chapman about how a different project would be more profitable or to convince him to sell the property to them so that they can do something else with it.
Ultimately, a property owner has to the right to do what they want with their property within the rules and the city cannot change the rules just to make some constituents happy. It’s better that the city agreed to that now before they wasted taxpayer’s money and more of Chapman’s time only to hear it from a judge.