Letter to the Editor: Three Corners a concept, not a plan

Phyllis Frey

DO NOT BE FOOLED regarding the development of the Power Plant site at Three Corners. The key word to remember is CONCEPT. According to Webster’s dictionary, the word CONCEPT means, “an abstract idea, or invention to help sell or promote a commodity.” At this point, the only thing the public has been given is a CONcept. 

If voters give up right to decide future of this property based on a concept, City Council alone can finalize the actual plan.

The purpose of an urban planning facilitator is to propose abstract ideas to the public in order to clear the way for developers who will, once the land is leased to them, implement their ACTUAL plans. The public will no longer have a say, you will lose the land, and the developers will earn generational wealth. If the public votes “yes” to referendum #1 on the November 8th ballot, money becomes the driver, not the preferences and voices of the residents, taxpayers or voters. 

Changes in zoning from industrial to commercial, mixed land use means a hotel can be built on site up to 50′ in height as well as additional buildings of 50′, according to the Charter. Note, hotel is on the referendum. 

Green space, recreational and family activities were listed as the top priorities by the public. 

Hotels, bars and other venues for commercialization were last. 

In a cunning strategy, the city council took $1 million in city taxpayer money to build a sports complex on county school property. Where will they find the money for recreation at Three Corners? This conveniently paves the way for high density development, concrete and asphalt. 

All the public has is a CONCEPT. On November 8th, that concept will change into reality, one that will bring the highest and best use for the benefit of the developers and the public will no longer have a say. 

Vote NO to referendum #1 on the Power Plant site. Give yourself a voice, a choice and a vote in the future of your community. 


  1. Hi Phyllis :
    Based upon previous decision making history we know your comments are warranted . The only thing that perhaps changes the character of this one somewhat – is the caliber of the work , the magnitude / scope of the project – and the number of staunch supporters that are going to follow its progress and are prepared to create a bloody hell of an uproar I am told – if Council strays from the original design .
    We have seen uproars ignored before – . I resent deeply that the projects / both 3C and the City Marina Expansion are being presented to voters in such an unsatisfactory way . An all or nothing take it or leave it way .

  2. Some who advocated most aggressively for the sale of Vero Electric were motivated, not to seek lower electric rates, (with consequent reductions in City services), but rather to make the old power plant site available for commercial development. At the time Vero Beach voters were electing to their city council candidates committed to the sale of the electric utility, there was available to them ample reporting on the fact that development interests were driving the sale. Despite repeated warnings that valuable, publicly owned riverfront property would ultimately be handed over for commercial development, a majority of the City’s voters accept this fact, or chose to ignore it. It remains true that in a democracy you get the kind of government you deserve. – Mark Schumann

Comment - Please use your first and last name. Comments of up to 350 words are welcome.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s