West Palm Beach’s loss could be West Palm Beach’s gain
Court ruling opens the door for negotiations with a potential operator of the Sunset Lounge.
Through its own actions, West Palm Beach found itself with a newly renovated $20 million restaurant and nightclub in the Historic Northwest Neighborhood and nobody to run it.
The only group showing continued interest in the challenging task had to sue the city just to get back to the bargaining table.
In a March 23 ruling, they won and the city lost. But the city’s loss could be its victory.
The loss gives the city an option it had been unwilling to consider: Negotiate a contract with the group, West Palm Beach-based Vita Lounge, to run the shuttered Sunset Lounge. An operator gives the city a chance to get a return on its investment in the heart of the predominantly Black community.
That this opportunity comes at the sharp end of Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Carolyn Bell’s scathing opinion after a Jan. 26-27 trial doesn’t make it matter any less.
A win in court could have been worse for the city.
It would have left the city’s Community Redevelopment Agency with no one primed to take on the complex task of booking concerts and a top-shelf restaurant to a venue with virtually no parking in a residential neighborhood with crime issues nine blocks north of sizzling Clematis Street.
The only other bidder, Miami’s Mad Room Hospitality, said it would not be back after it, too, had been disqualified. Mad Room put together its bid just a week before the May 16 deadline — after the CRA extended the bidding period by six weeks to assure competition.
Despite opposition from Mayor Keith James, the City Commission, sitting as the CRA, voted 4-2 on June 27 to negotiate a contract with Vita.
By July 12, Vita was out, disqualified for violating city lobbying provisions.
Vita sued. It tried but failed in its lawsuit to link the mayor to its ouster by the city’s procurement officer, Paul Bassar.
Even absent political games, Judge Bell didn’t find anything to like in Bassar’s action.
The city misinterpreted a friend’s Facebook post urging the city to back Vita, thinking it came from a principal in the project and constituted lobbying, Bell ruled. The city failed to tie another member of Vita’s large team to emails urging resident support.
The city used “incorrect facts.” It relied on unclear rules. It offered Vita no chance to appeal.
“Mr. Bassar’s disqualification of Vita was arbitrary and capricious,” she wrote. It “was not made in good faith.”
An email to the city’s spokeswoman, as listed on the city’s website, Diane Goodwin Papadakos, went unanswered before this story was posted Monday evening.
But she replied Tuesday with a statement saying: “Although, we have a great deal of respect for the court and its opinion regarding the legal matter, the city and CRA are reviewing the decision and considering all legal options prior to beginning good faith negotiations to contract for the operation of the Sunset Lounge.”
Even if the city had better connected Vita to the Facebook posts, the court didn’t have an issue with bidders trying to win over the public.
“Although the rule reads ‘no person’ shall contact or lobby, Mr. Bassar’s reasons for disqualification did not include members of the community on their own contacting the decision makers,” Bell wrote in a footnote. “Particularly given the public’s express role in evaluating the proposers and the right of citizens to petition their elected officials, such an interpretation would be absurd.”
The city also cited Vita for giving a TV interview on the day the commission awarded the bid. That didn’t amount to much since the city procurement officer testified that he didn’t rely on the TV interview to disqualify Vita.
But the city wasn’t done. After both bidders were disqualified, the city canceled its Request for Proposals to find an operator for the Sunset Lounge, so, city lawyers argued, the city has nothing to negotiate with Vita about.
Not so, Judge Bell determined. She found the cancellation to be “arbitrary and capricious, and not a good faith, honest exercise of the CRA’s discretion.”
Bell concluded: “Since Vita is not disqualified, the court finds the city is legally required to continue the Sunset RFP and negotiate in good faith with Vita.
“Any attempt by the city to do otherwise is contrary to law, inconsistent with this court’s order and would unfairly circumvent the competitive bidding process.”
And she warned the city it better comply.
“Even if an argument could be made that the cancellation of the Sunset RFP could stand, the court has the inherent power to do those things necessary to enforce its orders and to ‘return the parties to the status quo prior to the institution of proceedings,’” she wrote. “Under the totality of the circumstances in this case, given its ruling that Vita’s disqualification was not warranted, the court would exercise its inherent authority and require the city to negotiate with Vita pursuant to the Sunset RFP.”
Is Vita still interested?
Absolutely, yes, the bidder’s attorney, F. Malcolm Cunningham Jr. replied.
You’re reading a story from Stet Media Group. Support Palm Beach County journalism in the public interest with a free or paid subscription.