It's bad enough that annexation is a difficult and complicated decision. It's made unreasonable if we're not given accurate information about what this prospect is all about.
Let's start at the beginning: annex what? There was early talk of "Peachtree," a somewhat stark, partially run down, densely-populated-mostly-by-renters area that we believe is likely the home to mischief-makers who literally cross the tracks to invade the Village to commit crimes. Maybe "Peachtree" was a real intention, and maybe it wasn't, but Sally Heyman made a brief presentation at last week's Commission meeting, and spoke with authority about what she wanted us to annex. She seemed to describe it clearly as the commercial area north of "Peachtree," which she described as an area that contained only warehouses and office buildings. No skanky apartment buildings. I can't remember if it was she or someone else who specified that the area under consideration runs from 121st to 116th, and from the track to Biscayne Boulevard.
The area in question contains many modest single family homes and duplexes, much like parts of North Miami and like some parts of Biscayne Park. The upkeep of the grounds is mostly modest and unimpressive, as it is in NM and some parts of the Park. There are some small and larger apartment buildings, mostly not run down or embattled-looking. Those grounds tend to be a bit nicer than the smaller homes. There is commerce, both of the warehouse variety and office buildings. And there are some stores and storefront arrangements.
Then, there's question #2A: why should we annex? There are sort of two reasons. One is money. We can, as Sally charmingly put it, tax the hell out of those properties. How much we can balance our fiscal tenuousness on the backs of those people "over there" depends on how much of the property is homesteaded. The apartment buildings and businesses are not. I have no idea how many of the homes and duplexes are inhabited by the property owners.
The other putative reason to annex is to control. I'm very proud to say we have a remarkable police force. They're astute, committed, vigilant, and they do an award-winning job for us. The County, which is the "municipality" of default for the area in question, does not patrol and control as our police force does. So if we "owned" this area, we could expand our force, and we could patrol and control that area as we do our little Village. In theory, maybe this reduces crime, since we patrol and control the area that we believe is the source of at least some of the crime. And the theory further has it that we can make so much money from our new tax source that we make more than it costs us to police the area. This reason to annex has to be considered theoretical.
Question #2B is why shouldn't we annex. And let me say right here that the reasons are no more than subjective and intangible. They have to do with the "Village," what it feels like to us, and how we feel about it. We chose to live in the Village because it is what it is. It doesn't have stores, or a school, or an expanse of warehouses and office buildings. Or more than two or three apartment buildings. And we concern ourselves with codes and their enforcement, because we want a style and a standard for this municipality. We don't have to want what we want, and what we have, but that's what we chose. It's no small matter to change that, even if we pretend it's all something "over there," across the tracks, and out of sight.
And renters can be a tricky business. They don't necessarily want what property owners want. Just last week, the Commission took the step, which I consider completely appropriate, of limiting members of the Code Compliance Board to people who own their homes in Biscayne Park. Frankly, I think members of the Commission should be held to the same standard. We should want that level of investment in this community from the people who serve us at the most consequential levels. They should have a full stake. It's certainly not that we don't have neighbors who rent the homes they live in. But it's a minor proportion. If we annex an area with a larger proportion of renters, who do not even rent properties that are of the standard of those in the Park proper, it changes the dynamic of who votes, and what's important to them. Is it the same as what's important to "us?" I wouldn't assume so.
So before we spread ourselves around, we need a careful consideration and discussion of what's at stake, and how we feel about it. The matter will not progress without a formal presentation at Commission meetings. Watch for it, tell your friends and neighbors, and "be there." Really. It's serious, and it's important.
PS: It is not quick and easy to get from the Park proper to the area we are asked to consider annexing. If police were needed, and they weren't there, it's a big problem. And the problem is that railroad track. It's an imposing and defining physical divider. If we erected a wall along the track, to separate us from whatever is over there, to solve invasion and noise problems, we're not having this conversation. Go check it out. The area in question has nothing to do with us. Unless all we want is the money, and we're willing to reinvent ourselves to get it.
No comments:
Post a Comment