Don't you hate that? Propriety these days requires me not to print certain words. I can suggest them, by using asterisks for some of the letters, but I'm not supposed to print the whole words. But the pseudocamouflage only works if you read the word I didn't type. You must be thinking the word I'm not supposed to say. How utterly silly and childish. But in order not to offend, I'm not to type the word. But if you have to read the word I didn't type, didn't I offend anyway? Never mind.
I was writing an e-mail to my cousin. We were talking about scotch whisky. And unrelatedly, we were also talking about money. So gmail has ads, along the top, the sides, and the bottom. I suddenly noticed, while I was looking away from the letter I was typing, that one of the ads was for whisky glasses, and another was for a guide to stock trading.
My daughter forwarded to me an e-mail JetBlue confirmation of her trip to Miami this coming March. The ads? Plane fares.
I got an e-confirmation of a book purchase from alibris.com. Ads this time? Online shopping.
And personal e-mails without catchwords in the content? No ads.
This seems very bad. It's clear gmail is reading my mail. It may be 28 years late, but 1984 is here. It's "Big Brother" all over. I find this very disheartening. So that's why I paid Bill Gates $20 a year for a hotmail account.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
CrimeWatch/Police Lunch 12/21/12
I wasn't going to post this report, on the chance that the world would end yesterday, and it wouldn't be necessary. But it seems we're all back in business, and back to the grind, so let me tell you about yesterday's event.
We have an annual CrimeWatch lunch, and our police have an annual lunch for themselves. This year we (Chuck Ross, Ray Atesiano, and Ana Garcia) decided to combine the events. So we had a nice lunch that included representatives of CrimeWatch, the police, and the administration. It was catered by PizzaFiore at NE 2nd and 96th in Miami Shores, and the food was very good.
We had about equal numbers residents, police, and administration/employees. The focus of our time together was awards. Lots of awards, and more than enough cause for them. Our police have done a breathtaking job, moreso every year and every month. Three kinds of indicators were presented. One is arrests, for anything. This sounds like bad news, but if you remember my explanation in "They Don't Call it CrimeWatch for Nothing," you'll remember that lots of arrests is a good thing. We are off the charts in terms of arrest statistics. I think Chuck or Ray said we're now over 800 for the year. This number is unthinkable, except it's true. The point here is that arrests are made for an identifiable cause, and we have intimidated a lot of mischief makers, who will now not want to come anywhere near us the next time they're in the mood to make mischief. This is the operative dynamic.
The second indicator is arrest "clearance," or the rate at which crimes are solved. I'm going to quote you the number from yesterday, though it's hard to believe it. It's over 80% for this year. To remind you, 30% is a very impressive number for most municipalities. Nobody, ever, clears 80% of arrests. Nobody except Ray Atesiano and his officers. Here's what's going to happen to us. Our police will realize what they're doing, they'll form a coalition, and they'll demand that we triple their salaries, or they'll jump ship. And we won't have any choice but to give them whatever they want. I told this to Nick Wollschlager, and he told me no, it's their pleasure to do what they can for us, who employ them. You think I'm making this up, right? Nope. And I'll tell you now, Nick won the Officer of the Year Award.
The third indicator of the job our police are doing is the proof of the pudding. Two years ago, there were about 60 burglaries in Biscayne Park. Last year, there were about 40. This year, there have been about 20. Ray says his goal for next year is 10. Do you want to live in a really safe community? Done. It's not gated, there are no security cameras, and it's not swarming with police. The result of solid, persistent police work is a place where criminals don't bother to go, and the residents live in peace. If it gets better than that, I'd like to know how.
The awards. The shorter list is who didn't get one. Nick did. Guillermo Ravelo is the Rookie of the year. Jason Santiago is the Reserve Officer of the Year. Most Improved, or something, is Carlos Meza. Charlie Dayoub got an award, as did Mark Tarr, Roy Camara, and Rafael Del Villar . The latter two are also BP residents. Larry Churchman got an award. So did Ray Atesiano, who has the abundant support and appreciation of his troops. And the growing gratitude of this community.
Chuck got an award from the police, and Rosemary Wais got an award from Chuck. It was the first ever CrimeWatch award given to a member of Citizens' CrimeWatch, and Rosemary got it for general participation, enthusiasm, and helpfulness. She was taken completely off guard, and I won't say there wasn't a bit of choking up and loss for some words.
Our police gave an award to their boss, Ana Garcia. They figured out exactly how girlie she is, and what a tough guy she is. They managed both to get some tears from her, and present her with a statue of an eagle. She could not have been more appreciative and moved. And the way had been paved earlier by Candido Sosa, her Assistant, who reportedly told her how "bad-ass" she looked, which she did. The perfect combination of girlie and tough guy.
Not enough of "us" were there, but those who were enjoyed ourselves, got even closer and more personal with our guys, had a nice meal, and felt the love. Of which there was plenty. And it would be an omission not to give props to our two stalwart, reliable, dedicated Commissioners, who are always there, always contributing, and never flinch. Thanks Rox, and thanks, Bob. That's the kind of day it was. Next year, come. It's free, it's fun, and we're all welcome.
We have an annual CrimeWatch lunch, and our police have an annual lunch for themselves. This year we (Chuck Ross, Ray Atesiano, and Ana Garcia) decided to combine the events. So we had a nice lunch that included representatives of CrimeWatch, the police, and the administration. It was catered by PizzaFiore at NE 2nd and 96th in Miami Shores, and the food was very good.
We had about equal numbers residents, police, and administration/employees. The focus of our time together was awards. Lots of awards, and more than enough cause for them. Our police have done a breathtaking job, moreso every year and every month. Three kinds of indicators were presented. One is arrests, for anything. This sounds like bad news, but if you remember my explanation in "They Don't Call it CrimeWatch for Nothing," you'll remember that lots of arrests is a good thing. We are off the charts in terms of arrest statistics. I think Chuck or Ray said we're now over 800 for the year. This number is unthinkable, except it's true. The point here is that arrests are made for an identifiable cause, and we have intimidated a lot of mischief makers, who will now not want to come anywhere near us the next time they're in the mood to make mischief. This is the operative dynamic.
The second indicator is arrest "clearance," or the rate at which crimes are solved. I'm going to quote you the number from yesterday, though it's hard to believe it. It's over 80% for this year. To remind you, 30% is a very impressive number for most municipalities. Nobody, ever, clears 80% of arrests. Nobody except Ray Atesiano and his officers. Here's what's going to happen to us. Our police will realize what they're doing, they'll form a coalition, and they'll demand that we triple their salaries, or they'll jump ship. And we won't have any choice but to give them whatever they want. I told this to Nick Wollschlager, and he told me no, it's their pleasure to do what they can for us, who employ them. You think I'm making this up, right? Nope. And I'll tell you now, Nick won the Officer of the Year Award.
The third indicator of the job our police are doing is the proof of the pudding. Two years ago, there were about 60 burglaries in Biscayne Park. Last year, there were about 40. This year, there have been about 20. Ray says his goal for next year is 10. Do you want to live in a really safe community? Done. It's not gated, there are no security cameras, and it's not swarming with police. The result of solid, persistent police work is a place where criminals don't bother to go, and the residents live in peace. If it gets better than that, I'd like to know how.
The awards. The shorter list is who didn't get one. Nick did. Guillermo Ravelo is the Rookie of the year. Jason Santiago is the Reserve Officer of the Year. Most Improved, or something, is Carlos Meza. Charlie Dayoub got an award, as did Mark Tarr, Roy Camara, and Rafael Del Villar . The latter two are also BP residents. Larry Churchman got an award. So did Ray Atesiano, who has the abundant support and appreciation of his troops. And the growing gratitude of this community.
Chuck got an award from the police, and Rosemary Wais got an award from Chuck. It was the first ever CrimeWatch award given to a member of Citizens' CrimeWatch, and Rosemary got it for general participation, enthusiasm, and helpfulness. She was taken completely off guard, and I won't say there wasn't a bit of choking up and loss for some words.
Our police gave an award to their boss, Ana Garcia. They figured out exactly how girlie she is, and what a tough guy she is. They managed both to get some tears from her, and present her with a statue of an eagle. She could not have been more appreciative and moved. And the way had been paved earlier by Candido Sosa, her Assistant, who reportedly told her how "bad-ass" she looked, which she did. The perfect combination of girlie and tough guy.
Not enough of "us" were there, but those who were enjoyed ourselves, got even closer and more personal with our guys, had a nice meal, and felt the love. Of which there was plenty. And it would be an omission not to give props to our two stalwart, reliable, dedicated Commissioners, who are always there, always contributing, and never flinch. Thanks Rox, and thanks, Bob. That's the kind of day it was. Next year, come. It's free, it's fun, and we're all welcome.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Let Me Tell You Whom You're Dealing With, Sucka.
I could have called this post "Hizzoner." But what we witness month after month, and meeting after meeting, is something more imperious, and more provocative, and more threatening than that. I didn't want to let this seem cute, because it isn't cute at all.
I don't just mean the symbolism concretized in the ending of discussions. Where most chairpeople would make a casual, and certainly courteous, observation that there seemed to be no more discussion, or would ask if there was any more, Noah Jacobs likes to close consideration of topics by his own personal, and personalized, declaration, "I'm calling for the question." He leaves no doubt, and wants no doubt, about who's in charge here. He even customizes the phrase "calling the question," so you know this is Noah, and we'll do it Noah's way.
No, it's not just that. It's the way Noah tries to exercise his sense of power. It's the frequency with which he says, as he did again last night, that if you do this or that, or you don't do this or that, you won't get his vote. It's different from Bryan Cooper, who rarely agrees with anything, and says almost by way of explanation that he "can't vote for" whatever it is, for whatever is his excuse of the moment. He isn't bargaining. He's just telling you why the answer is no, as the answer is almost always no.
Jacobs' approach is different. It has a dynamic to it. He tells you what you can have, and what it will cost you to get it. Is this a nice way to deal with people? No, it is most assuredly not nice. But Noah isn't about nice, or cooperative. He's about his own little sense of power. And importantly, it's not about the issue. It's not about the Village. It's only about Noah. Last night, the issue was so minor that you could have overlooked it. It was insignificant. It was nothing more than where in the Village paperwork to put the requirement that the Code Officer work however many hours, or have whatever credential. Should this requirement be in the description of the Code Compliance Board, or should it be in the job description of the Code Compliance Officer? No one disagreed that the requirement was important.
So it's an oddity that sticks out like a sore thumb when Noah makes such a big deal about it, and uses it as the latest setting for his standard, and seemingly adored, ultimatum: if you move it to the job description, instead of the Code Compliance Board, you won't get my vote. It's bizarre. It's embarrassing. Though seemingly not to Noah. He treats a simple matter like a fight, as if it were consequential and important.
Now truth be told, there appeared to be an undercurrent dynamic at work. As it happens, Barbara Watts had the identical concern. Bob Anderson said he thought the Officer's job description was better placed under the personnel section of Village regulation, but it was OK with him if it was left in the Code Board's regulations. Roxy Ross didn't care, as long as the matter was moved along. Only Jacobs and Watts said they saw this as important. Critically important. How these two people, one of whom has no familiarity with the workings of the Village, and the other of whom has only a spotty little, came both to feel this seemingly minor and nominal matter was so critically important is perhaps anyone's guess. If you think about it, there is only one difference created by where you put the description. If you put the description in the personnel regulations, it's the Manager who monitors and controls it. If you put it in the Code Board regulations, it's the Code Board that monitors and controls it. Considering that it's the Manager who hires and fires, and the Manager who is a trained expert in municipal management, you would pretty much have to be at war with the position of the manager to want to make a battlefield of such a small issue. Is there anyone in the Village who seems persistently to be at war with the position of the manager, apparently no matter who fills that position? I don't know. I'll have to think about it. And if I could think of any such person, it would apparently have to be someone with influence over Jacobs and Watts. That's a pretty specific requirement.
But it doesn't change the issue about Jacobs' style. We're talking about someone who has gotten way ahead of himself. Who has no sense of proportion. Frankly, I wasn't fully expecting it last night, and not only because the issue was a non-issue. Jacobs made special mention of last week's tragedy in Connecticut, and he suggested that such an event should make clear what's really important in life. It seems Noah's conclusion is that he is.
PS: If it appears I left Bryan Cooper out of the discussion of last night's meeting, it's because he wasn't there. He left himself out. Some of us complained about it, again. After the meeting, Dan Samaria approached us and said there was a reason Bryan wasn't there, Dan could not reveal what that reason was, and that if we knew about it, perhaps we would be a bit more forgiving of Bryan's absence. We agreed that things do happen, and that if anyone in any capacity could no longer meet his or her responsibilities to an organization, it was appropriate to resign. And noting, of course, that Bryan isn't just occasionally absent. He's absent more than anyone else, and he invariably neglects a whole class of Commissioner responsibilities. At this point, Dan became muddled about his excuses for Bryan.
I don't just mean the symbolism concretized in the ending of discussions. Where most chairpeople would make a casual, and certainly courteous, observation that there seemed to be no more discussion, or would ask if there was any more, Noah Jacobs likes to close consideration of topics by his own personal, and personalized, declaration, "I'm calling for the question." He leaves no doubt, and wants no doubt, about who's in charge here. He even customizes the phrase "calling the question," so you know this is Noah, and we'll do it Noah's way.
No, it's not just that. It's the way Noah tries to exercise his sense of power. It's the frequency with which he says, as he did again last night, that if you do this or that, or you don't do this or that, you won't get his vote. It's different from Bryan Cooper, who rarely agrees with anything, and says almost by way of explanation that he "can't vote for" whatever it is, for whatever is his excuse of the moment. He isn't bargaining. He's just telling you why the answer is no, as the answer is almost always no.
Jacobs' approach is different. It has a dynamic to it. He tells you what you can have, and what it will cost you to get it. Is this a nice way to deal with people? No, it is most assuredly not nice. But Noah isn't about nice, or cooperative. He's about his own little sense of power. And importantly, it's not about the issue. It's not about the Village. It's only about Noah. Last night, the issue was so minor that you could have overlooked it. It was insignificant. It was nothing more than where in the Village paperwork to put the requirement that the Code Officer work however many hours, or have whatever credential. Should this requirement be in the description of the Code Compliance Board, or should it be in the job description of the Code Compliance Officer? No one disagreed that the requirement was important.
So it's an oddity that sticks out like a sore thumb when Noah makes such a big deal about it, and uses it as the latest setting for his standard, and seemingly adored, ultimatum: if you move it to the job description, instead of the Code Compliance Board, you won't get my vote. It's bizarre. It's embarrassing. Though seemingly not to Noah. He treats a simple matter like a fight, as if it were consequential and important.
Now truth be told, there appeared to be an undercurrent dynamic at work. As it happens, Barbara Watts had the identical concern. Bob Anderson said he thought the Officer's job description was better placed under the personnel section of Village regulation, but it was OK with him if it was left in the Code Board's regulations. Roxy Ross didn't care, as long as the matter was moved along. Only Jacobs and Watts said they saw this as important. Critically important. How these two people, one of whom has no familiarity with the workings of the Village, and the other of whom has only a spotty little, came both to feel this seemingly minor and nominal matter was so critically important is perhaps anyone's guess. If you think about it, there is only one difference created by where you put the description. If you put the description in the personnel regulations, it's the Manager who monitors and controls it. If you put it in the Code Board regulations, it's the Code Board that monitors and controls it. Considering that it's the Manager who hires and fires, and the Manager who is a trained expert in municipal management, you would pretty much have to be at war with the position of the manager to want to make a battlefield of such a small issue. Is there anyone in the Village who seems persistently to be at war with the position of the manager, apparently no matter who fills that position? I don't know. I'll have to think about it. And if I could think of any such person, it would apparently have to be someone with influence over Jacobs and Watts. That's a pretty specific requirement.
But it doesn't change the issue about Jacobs' style. We're talking about someone who has gotten way ahead of himself. Who has no sense of proportion. Frankly, I wasn't fully expecting it last night, and not only because the issue was a non-issue. Jacobs made special mention of last week's tragedy in Connecticut, and he suggested that such an event should make clear what's really important in life. It seems Noah's conclusion is that he is.
PS: If it appears I left Bryan Cooper out of the discussion of last night's meeting, it's because he wasn't there. He left himself out. Some of us complained about it, again. After the meeting, Dan Samaria approached us and said there was a reason Bryan wasn't there, Dan could not reveal what that reason was, and that if we knew about it, perhaps we would be a bit more forgiving of Bryan's absence. We agreed that things do happen, and that if anyone in any capacity could no longer meet his or her responsibilities to an organization, it was appropriate to resign. And noting, of course, that Bryan isn't just occasionally absent. He's absent more than anyone else, and he invariably neglects a whole class of Commissioner responsibilities. At this point, Dan became muddled about his excuses for Bryan.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Correction to "I Should Have to Work Harder..."
Roxy Ross contacted me after I posted "I Should Have to Work Harder..." She let me know that it was not Jacobs' idea to delay starting the meeting last time. It was her own idea. She said Jacobs asked her if he should start without Watts and Cooper, and she told him he should wait. She also told me that Watts showed up, breathless and frazzled, put her stuff down, then wanted to go back to the lobby to get a cup of coffee. Again, Ross felt it was appropriate to wait for her to come back.
So my apologies to Jacobs for my assumption, based on what I took to be an observation, that he chose not to start the meeting without Watts and Cooper. It was certainly his decision to make, but according to Ross, it was not he who made it.
If we assume that he proceeds the same way all the time, we would then have to imagine that the month before, he asked Watts and Cooper what to do in Ross' and Anderson's absence, and they told him to forge ahead without these colleagues. If this is the case, it is made to appear that Ross, and persumably Anderson, are considerate of their colleagues, and Watts and Cooper are not. And of course Jacobs comes out looking either like he can't make decisions on his own, doesn't know what he's doing, or couldn't care less.
Anyway, I did want to be fair. I said something, and assumed something, that was technically incorrect.
So my apologies to Jacobs for my assumption, based on what I took to be an observation, that he chose not to start the meeting without Watts and Cooper. It was certainly his decision to make, but according to Ross, it was not he who made it.
If we assume that he proceeds the same way all the time, we would then have to imagine that the month before, he asked Watts and Cooper what to do in Ross' and Anderson's absence, and they told him to forge ahead without these colleagues. If this is the case, it is made to appear that Ross, and persumably Anderson, are considerate of their colleagues, and Watts and Cooper are not. And of course Jacobs comes out looking either like he can't make decisions on his own, doesn't know what he's doing, or couldn't care less.
Anyway, I did want to be fair. I said something, and assumed something, that was technically incorrect.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Winterfest, 2012
What a nice day. There were enough minor threats, though, to keep us honest. There was significant rain early this morning, but the clouds broke well before the planned start. There was very minor drizzling during the event, but not enough to change anyone's behavior, except mine and Gary Kuhl's. We kept bringing the Parks and Parkways fundraising table in, then bringing it back out. Ultimately, out is where it stayed.
We started off with a small, but interesting, car show. The organizer was Joe Chao, who has done these before, and he has them down to a science. He brought in friends from other parts of the county, but most of the cars were from the Dezer car museum in North Miami, and BP residents. Some were old, some newer, several exotic. And all pristine. Many of us, some who I would not have imagined were interested in cars, enjoyed looking and touching. The car and motorcycle, and bicycle, show was appealing and satisfying.
The rest of Winterfest was a mixture of pleasures. There were inflatable funhouses for the kids, a small merry-go-round, and lots of music. There were just a few tables of fundraisers and vendors. Not as many as in recent years, though. Actually, I miss the vendors who used to line the whole southeast edge of the park. There were food trucks, at least one of which made very good food. I didn't try the other two.
The other thing I ate was Barbara Kuhl's cupcakes and brownies. They were the reward for a donation to P&P, which is raising money to finish the planting outside the recreation center. The finish is plaques identifying the plants (what else would P&P want to do?), and Barbara raised more than enough money. She's quite a baker, Barbara is. And it should be acknowledged, with pleasure and special gratitude, that we have some very generous neighbors here. These are people who are devoted to BP and clearly happy to live here and be a part of things. There were some people who had to be asked to be slightly less generous. One of them asked Barbara how much money P&P needed to raise ($150), and when she told him, he said he'd cover it himself. She thanked him, but wouldn't let him do that, and he made a sizable donation anyway. That's a hell of a thing, isn't it? Those are the kinds of neighbors, and friends, you want.
The turnout was distinctly gratifying. The usuals were there, of course, but we also had the car crowd. And there were loads of kids. Probably five or six of our police were there, including Charlie Dayoub and his new friend, Melody, the canine. It looks like Charlie is still trying to train Melody, who is quite overactive. Ana Garcia was there, as were four of our Commissioners. Too bad that's worth mentioning, right? We're not getting the fifth, so it was as good as it was going to get.
The usual police-escorted Santacade happened. I'm told Jim Reeder is not well enough to be Santa any more, so it was reportedly Richard Ederr. I didn't see him, if he was there.
But everyone seemed to have had a nice time. The kids played with each other, the parents talked to each other, people enjoyed the music, and everyone seemed pleased to have a community day.
We started off with a small, but interesting, car show. The organizer was Joe Chao, who has done these before, and he has them down to a science. He brought in friends from other parts of the county, but most of the cars were from the Dezer car museum in North Miami, and BP residents. Some were old, some newer, several exotic. And all pristine. Many of us, some who I would not have imagined were interested in cars, enjoyed looking and touching. The car and motorcycle, and bicycle, show was appealing and satisfying.
The rest of Winterfest was a mixture of pleasures. There were inflatable funhouses for the kids, a small merry-go-round, and lots of music. There were just a few tables of fundraisers and vendors. Not as many as in recent years, though. Actually, I miss the vendors who used to line the whole southeast edge of the park. There were food trucks, at least one of which made very good food. I didn't try the other two.
The other thing I ate was Barbara Kuhl's cupcakes and brownies. They were the reward for a donation to P&P, which is raising money to finish the planting outside the recreation center. The finish is plaques identifying the plants (what else would P&P want to do?), and Barbara raised more than enough money. She's quite a baker, Barbara is. And it should be acknowledged, with pleasure and special gratitude, that we have some very generous neighbors here. These are people who are devoted to BP and clearly happy to live here and be a part of things. There were some people who had to be asked to be slightly less generous. One of them asked Barbara how much money P&P needed to raise ($150), and when she told him, he said he'd cover it himself. She thanked him, but wouldn't let him do that, and he made a sizable donation anyway. That's a hell of a thing, isn't it? Those are the kinds of neighbors, and friends, you want.
The turnout was distinctly gratifying. The usuals were there, of course, but we also had the car crowd. And there were loads of kids. Probably five or six of our police were there, including Charlie Dayoub and his new friend, Melody, the canine. It looks like Charlie is still trying to train Melody, who is quite overactive. Ana Garcia was there, as were four of our Commissioners. Too bad that's worth mentioning, right? We're not getting the fifth, so it was as good as it was going to get.
The usual police-escorted Santacade happened. I'm told Jim Reeder is not well enough to be Santa any more, so it was reportedly Richard Ederr. I didn't see him, if he was there.
But everyone seemed to have had a nice time. The kids played with each other, the parents talked to each other, people enjoyed the music, and everyone seemed pleased to have a community day.
Friday, December 14, 2012
They Make You an Offer it Seems You Can't Refuse. So Try Harder. Refuse.
Some years back, I switched to propane for my stove/oven, hot water, and clothes dryer. I signed up with Suburban Propane, just several blocks from here. Things went well, after an initial glitch, but the price kept jumping up. It seemed that every time I would get a delivery, I would have to call the office, speak to the manager (Steve Watson), and get a readjustment. It was a certain amount of trouble. So I started scouting around for a possible change to another supplier, and I found Dolphin Gas. They're up in Miami Gardens, they're a small local company, and they made me just the offer I wanted. They weren't one of those big corporates, like Suburban, with middle managers to pay, they could easily undercut Suburban's price, and they could turn on a dime. I could call any time, and I'd be speaking with the owner. How satisfying is that! Done.
The trouble started almost immediately. The price to rent the tank was higher, but that was going to be OK, because I'd save on the price of gas. I'd come out ahead, they reassured. I agreed to rent the tank, as opposed to buying it, as I rented with Suburban, but what I didn't find out until after the tank was installed was that I had to buy the regulator. It cost $195. And I had no use in the world for this piece, except to connect to the gas tank. If I'm renting the tank, and I can only use the regulator as an attachment for the tank, why isn't it part of what I'm renting? It was part of the rented tank with Suburban. That's just the way we do it, they explained, as if the explanation was satisfactory. Or rational.
Then, the deliveries started. The price was as advertised at first, but it didn't stay that way. This led to the same quarterly argument I used to have with Suburban, except now I was resentful. And Dolphin would come by when they wanted, and threaten to charge me a "trip fee" if I wasn't there to take delivery. They always reversed the penalty, but it was a waste of my time, and it left me even more resentful. Finally, I got a bill that was higher than I expected, and I called to inquire. It seems I didn't use as much gas as I used to, and they didn't have to replace as much. So they applied the minimum charge, which was very high per gallon. I asked the owner, Linda, about this, and she asked me if there were less people living in the house since last November. Yes, in fact, there were. Apparently, this is the standard result of a kid going off to college, or a couple who are no longer a couple. But instead of calling to readjust the schedule of delivery, they just kept up the quarterly deliveries, and charged me more. So now, I'm going back to Suburban, who are much easier to deal with, and I have no further complaints.
About three years ago, I had gotten one too many mailings from ATT/Uverse, and decided it didn't make sense not to save the money. I agreed to switch. On three conditions. One, I must have a wired line. I depend on my phone system. Two, Uverse must save me money. And three, my wife likes to watch TV, and she has favorite shows. She must have her shows. One, no problem. We're fully wired. Two, no problem. You will save money. Three, we can't look it up right now, to check your wife's preferences, but we have loads of contracts with networks, and we keep getting more. So assume no problem. OK, I switched. How long will my phone be out of commission for the switch? Maybe 20 minutes. Done.
The first bill was artificially high, with the usual initial smoke and mirrors, but I knew to expect it. The second bill, the real charge, was only a few dollars more than my regular ATT bill was. Um, really? I know it's not much, but it's more. It was supposed to be less. And while we're discussing this, let me just be completely sure. The system is 100% wired, just like regular ATT, right? Right. Until the line gets to the outside of your house, where it ends in a box with a transmitter and a battery. Battery? How long does that last, when the power goes off? Four hours. Then you're done, with no phone. And by the way, my wife can't find one of her favorite shows. Can you look for it for me, so I can tell her what channel it is? Ah, we don't yet have a contract with that network.
OK, we're done. I want to go back to ATT. Switch it. No problem, but you'll be without internet for two weeks. What? It didn't take two hours to switch it from ATT. Why does it take two weeks to switch to ATT? It just does. Fine, we'll do it in August. My wife and I will be away for two weeks.
So the switch occurred. And for one week of the time, there was no voicemail, either, and ATT chose to replace my voicemail with a computer recording saying the number was no longer in service. This is what callers, including business schedulers, heard. I was, shall we say, not happy? Do you want to know if ATT offered me a year's free telephone, or a month's, or a week's? No, they did not. It's really too bad I'm so dependent on a wired landline. Otherwise, I'd be done with the whole scam.
The trouble started almost immediately. The price to rent the tank was higher, but that was going to be OK, because I'd save on the price of gas. I'd come out ahead, they reassured. I agreed to rent the tank, as opposed to buying it, as I rented with Suburban, but what I didn't find out until after the tank was installed was that I had to buy the regulator. It cost $195. And I had no use in the world for this piece, except to connect to the gas tank. If I'm renting the tank, and I can only use the regulator as an attachment for the tank, why isn't it part of what I'm renting? It was part of the rented tank with Suburban. That's just the way we do it, they explained, as if the explanation was satisfactory. Or rational.
Then, the deliveries started. The price was as advertised at first, but it didn't stay that way. This led to the same quarterly argument I used to have with Suburban, except now I was resentful. And Dolphin would come by when they wanted, and threaten to charge me a "trip fee" if I wasn't there to take delivery. They always reversed the penalty, but it was a waste of my time, and it left me even more resentful. Finally, I got a bill that was higher than I expected, and I called to inquire. It seems I didn't use as much gas as I used to, and they didn't have to replace as much. So they applied the minimum charge, which was very high per gallon. I asked the owner, Linda, about this, and she asked me if there were less people living in the house since last November. Yes, in fact, there were. Apparently, this is the standard result of a kid going off to college, or a couple who are no longer a couple. But instead of calling to readjust the schedule of delivery, they just kept up the quarterly deliveries, and charged me more. So now, I'm going back to Suburban, who are much easier to deal with, and I have no further complaints.
About three years ago, I had gotten one too many mailings from ATT/Uverse, and decided it didn't make sense not to save the money. I agreed to switch. On three conditions. One, I must have a wired line. I depend on my phone system. Two, Uverse must save me money. And three, my wife likes to watch TV, and she has favorite shows. She must have her shows. One, no problem. We're fully wired. Two, no problem. You will save money. Three, we can't look it up right now, to check your wife's preferences, but we have loads of contracts with networks, and we keep getting more. So assume no problem. OK, I switched. How long will my phone be out of commission for the switch? Maybe 20 minutes. Done.
The first bill was artificially high, with the usual initial smoke and mirrors, but I knew to expect it. The second bill, the real charge, was only a few dollars more than my regular ATT bill was. Um, really? I know it's not much, but it's more. It was supposed to be less. And while we're discussing this, let me just be completely sure. The system is 100% wired, just like regular ATT, right? Right. Until the line gets to the outside of your house, where it ends in a box with a transmitter and a battery. Battery? How long does that last, when the power goes off? Four hours. Then you're done, with no phone. And by the way, my wife can't find one of her favorite shows. Can you look for it for me, so I can tell her what channel it is? Ah, we don't yet have a contract with that network.
OK, we're done. I want to go back to ATT. Switch it. No problem, but you'll be without internet for two weeks. What? It didn't take two hours to switch it from ATT. Why does it take two weeks to switch to ATT? It just does. Fine, we'll do it in August. My wife and I will be away for two weeks.
So the switch occurred. And for one week of the time, there was no voicemail, either, and ATT chose to replace my voicemail with a computer recording saying the number was no longer in service. This is what callers, including business schedulers, heard. I was, shall we say, not happy? Do you want to know if ATT offered me a year's free telephone, or a month's, or a week's? No, they did not. It's really too bad I'm so dependent on a wired landline. Otherwise, I'd be done with the whole scam.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
A Close Call: Slices
Did you ever get to Slices? I did tell you to go eat there. And I wasn't the only one. Victor Romano and Steve Taylor were the ones who told me.
I got myself all in the mood on a recent Sunday evening, only to find them closed. Someone else found them closed on a Sunday, too. I thought the worst, but it turns out it was just logistics. They're still open, and I was there last night. Whew!
The owner/manager is a French guy named Alexandre. His son cooked there for a while last year, until he went off to cooking school in France. There were other cooks, who had interesting resumes. What they had in common was that they had never done this before, until they came to Slices. Alex taught them everything. The head waiter was Sylvain (he's been transferred to a different restaurant). Terrific guy, who turned out to be a magnificent cook when he took over for a spell. There have been a few different waitresses, and my favorite is Felissa. She's there now.
The signature menu entry is the Rodizio dinner. It's patterned after Brazilian churrasco (Alex's wife is Brazilian), and it's all-you-can-eat carbohydrates and fat, a mix of pizza, pasta, and risotto. If you want to know which one isn't great, the answer is none of them. It's true they love cheese at Slices, but it really isn't overdone. And the range of pizzas, pastas, and risottos (risotti) are endlessly interesting. And always delicious. If you want a pizza with a certain topping, or a pasta or risotto with certain ingredients, they'll just make it for you.
The food comes along without stopping. Sometimes, they bring it faster than I can eat it. It isn't over until it's over for you. And when you say it's over, they offer their dessert pizza, which is pizza dough with Nutella and fruit on top. A very interesting concept, that's more interesting than it is spectacular food. Not bad, though.
Two things happen if you get there before 7:00. One is the "early bird" price of $13 for all you can eat, of remarkably good food. After 7:00, the same menu is $16. And that's just the Rodizio. They have a full, normal menu of Italian food, including salad, veggies, and other dishes if you don't have a Rodizio appetite.
The second thing that happens if you get there before 7:00 is the "happy hour." Two beers, or two glasses of wine, for the price of one. They have some terrific beers, and excellent wines, and the prices are not high to start. I get Shock Top, a Belgian-style beer, which is on tap for only $4 a glass. So that's $2 a glass before 7.
Slices is a wonderful, satisfying, friendly place to eat. They have to deal with a slightly problematic location at about 138th and Biscayne, and prices that seem unsustainably low, but boy, do they provide a magnificent dining experience. Go there, or be square. And although they advertise a super low Rodizio price for lunch, they're actually only open for dinner.
Addendum: Je suis desole. Il n'y a plus de happy hour, ni de early bird special.
I got myself all in the mood on a recent Sunday evening, only to find them closed. Someone else found them closed on a Sunday, too. I thought the worst, but it turns out it was just logistics. They're still open, and I was there last night. Whew!
The owner/manager is a French guy named Alexandre. His son cooked there for a while last year, until he went off to cooking school in France. There were other cooks, who had interesting resumes. What they had in common was that they had never done this before, until they came to Slices. Alex taught them everything. The head waiter was Sylvain (he's been transferred to a different restaurant). Terrific guy, who turned out to be a magnificent cook when he took over for a spell. There have been a few different waitresses, and my favorite is Felissa. She's there now.
The signature menu entry is the Rodizio dinner. It's patterned after Brazilian churrasco (Alex's wife is Brazilian), and it's all-you-can-eat carbohydrates and fat, a mix of pizza, pasta, and risotto. If you want to know which one isn't great, the answer is none of them. It's true they love cheese at Slices, but it really isn't overdone. And the range of pizzas, pastas, and risottos (risotti) are endlessly interesting. And always delicious. If you want a pizza with a certain topping, or a pasta or risotto with certain ingredients, they'll just make it for you.
The food comes along without stopping. Sometimes, they bring it faster than I can eat it. It isn't over until it's over for you. And when you say it's over, they offer their dessert pizza, which is pizza dough with Nutella and fruit on top. A very interesting concept, that's more interesting than it is spectacular food. Not bad, though.
Two things happen if you get there before 7:00. One is the "early bird" price of $13 for all you can eat, of remarkably good food. After 7:00, the same menu is $16. And that's just the Rodizio. They have a full, normal menu of Italian food, including salad, veggies, and other dishes if you don't have a Rodizio appetite.
The second thing that happens if you get there before 7:00 is the "happy hour." Two beers, or two glasses of wine, for the price of one. They have some terrific beers, and excellent wines, and the prices are not high to start. I get Shock Top, a Belgian-style beer, which is on tap for only $4 a glass. So that's $2 a glass before 7.
Slices is a wonderful, satisfying, friendly place to eat. They have to deal with a slightly problematic location at about 138th and Biscayne, and prices that seem unsustainably low, but boy, do they provide a magnificent dining experience. Go there, or be square. And although they advertise a super low Rodizio price for lunch, they're actually only open for dinner.
Addendum: Je suis desole. Il n'y a plus de happy hour, ni de early bird special.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Planning and Zoning
I was appointed to the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board in 2006. I was on that Board for about 3-4 years, and because of P&Z, I was also on the Code Review Committee for about two years. These were tremendously valuable experiences, and I really have Gage Hartung, Andrew Olis, Elizabeth Piotrowski, and Mario Rumiano to thank for many lessons learned. I think I wasn't always easy to deal with on that Board.
Being on P&Z was hard. It wasn't so much that I didn't know the first thing about design, or the Village Codes. I could learn that, and over time, I think I did. I had excellent teachers in the people mentioned. The hard part of being on that Board was learning to balance the needs and wishes of homeowners against the needs and wishes of the greater community. It would have been easier to have advocated for homeowners, and declared the Codes intrusive and faulty, or to have advocated for the Codes, and declared independent-minded homeowners self-centered and irresponsible. What was hard was finding a fair and reasonable middle ground. It was helping homeowners find alternatives to the one idea they had in mind, which was either prohibited by a Code or would have caused too much unease among their neighbors, or finding ways to massage interpretation of one or another Code, to allow the rest of us to be a bit more permissive of things we might reflexly have refused.
When you represent the Village, at any level, you can't simply take sides. You can't just advocate for the "little guy," and rail at the Village, the "government," "the man," or "the powers that be." And you can't advocate for the Village at the expense of the people who comprise and support it. There is never complete agreement, about anything, and you have to find some sort of satisfying compromise. You have to come as close as you can to a win-win. You have to work hard not to let people feel as if they've lost, or been overpowered. And you have to preserve critical relationships with your colleagues, with whom you have to work, but also who are, "at the end of the day," your neighbors.
I'm not still on P&Z, or Code Review. But I can count all the people with whom I worked as friends at some level. We didn't always agree, not at all sometimes, but we maintained respect for each other. I hope it's not just wishful thinking, but I would like to think I represented at least a small part of the value to them that they did to me.
Being on P&Z was hard. It wasn't so much that I didn't know the first thing about design, or the Village Codes. I could learn that, and over time, I think I did. I had excellent teachers in the people mentioned. The hard part of being on that Board was learning to balance the needs and wishes of homeowners against the needs and wishes of the greater community. It would have been easier to have advocated for homeowners, and declared the Codes intrusive and faulty, or to have advocated for the Codes, and declared independent-minded homeowners self-centered and irresponsible. What was hard was finding a fair and reasonable middle ground. It was helping homeowners find alternatives to the one idea they had in mind, which was either prohibited by a Code or would have caused too much unease among their neighbors, or finding ways to massage interpretation of one or another Code, to allow the rest of us to be a bit more permissive of things we might reflexly have refused.
When you represent the Village, at any level, you can't simply take sides. You can't just advocate for the "little guy," and rail at the Village, the "government," "the man," or "the powers that be." And you can't advocate for the Village at the expense of the people who comprise and support it. There is never complete agreement, about anything, and you have to find some sort of satisfying compromise. You have to come as close as you can to a win-win. You have to work hard not to let people feel as if they've lost, or been overpowered. And you have to preserve critical relationships with your colleagues, with whom you have to work, but also who are, "at the end of the day," your neighbors.
I'm not still on P&Z, or Code Review. But I can count all the people with whom I worked as friends at some level. We didn't always agree, not at all sometimes, but we maintained respect for each other. I hope it's not just wishful thinking, but I would like to think I represented at least a small part of the value to them that they did to me.
Friday, December 7, 2012
All in the Family (A True Story)
This morning, I took myself to breakfast at Guns and Bagels and Co. A woman ambled in and sat on the counter stool next to me. She took out her cell phone, and made a call. She also ordered her breakfast (and four slices of sable to go, for her mother's lunch). She says she never knows what to make her mother for lunch.
There's no way I could have helped overhearing. It was 8:30, and she was calling her doctor's office. The conversation sounded like the kind you have with the office, not the answering service. She wanted to cancel her appointment for today.
The reason she gave (it sounded like they must have asked) was what she called a "family emergency." She then talked some more, and seemed to be scheduling an alternate appointment.
The conversation I imagined was this:
Receptionist: I hope everything is OK. It sounds noisy where you are.
Patient: I'm at a restaurant having breakfast.
Rec: I thought you said you had a family emergency.
Pat: Yes, but that's not scheduled until later.
She then made some other calls, to what sounded either like friends or other family members. There was no mention of a family emergency, and no urgency in the calls. The waitress was talking to her about how she would be spending the rest of her day. Again, no mention of a family emergency.
I guess it was gesture enough that she didn't tell the doctor's office she simply wasn't in the mood to have an appointment, or that she had better things to do with her time. It was too bad, though, that she was wasting the doctor's time, and maybe depriving someone else of an appointment they could have had today (Friday). Maybe the office can call one of the people who might have been put off until Monday, to let them know there's now an opening today. I hope so. With things to be done, it seems so disrespectful, and arrogant, to treat other people and their time and agendas this way.
There's no way I could have helped overhearing. It was 8:30, and she was calling her doctor's office. The conversation sounded like the kind you have with the office, not the answering service. She wanted to cancel her appointment for today.
The reason she gave (it sounded like they must have asked) was what she called a "family emergency." She then talked some more, and seemed to be scheduling an alternate appointment.
The conversation I imagined was this:
Receptionist: I hope everything is OK. It sounds noisy where you are.
Patient: I'm at a restaurant having breakfast.
Rec: I thought you said you had a family emergency.
Pat: Yes, but that's not scheduled until later.
She then made some other calls, to what sounded either like friends or other family members. There was no mention of a family emergency, and no urgency in the calls. The waitress was talking to her about how she would be spending the rest of her day. Again, no mention of a family emergency.
I guess it was gesture enough that she didn't tell the doctor's office she simply wasn't in the mood to have an appointment, or that she had better things to do with her time. It was too bad, though, that she was wasting the doctor's time, and maybe depriving someone else of an appointment they could have had today (Friday). Maybe the office can call one of the people who might have been put off until Monday, to let them know there's now an opening today. I hope so. With things to be done, it seems so disrespectful, and arrogant, to treat other people and their time and agendas this way.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Heads Up, Bryan
Bryan, just a request for you. Please try to be careful when you decide to shoot your mouth off. The last time you did it, when you accused Sira Ramos of packing heat while she was accosting (threatening?) BP residents, it cost us about $500 of attorney time the next day, to clean up the mess you made. And the unfortunate part of it is that your accusation was false, so we can't say it was money well spent.
And that adventure was nothing compared to the one a couple of years ago, when you made allegations against the Manager, then insisted the Village spend $5000 on an investigation that pointed to you as the miscreant. And again, you then challenged the conclusion of the investigation on which you insisted, you never apologized to anyone, and you even slithered away without consequence, so that money wasn't exactly well spent, either.
So please be a bit more careful and judicious when you get into your mode of imagining bogeymen and criminals, and you start launching accusations of people. It's poor form, it's very untidy, and it costs the Village money.
Thanks, Bryan.
PS, Bryan: I hope everything is OK with your family. You missed this week's Commission meeting, due to a "family emergency." You seem to have an unnerving amount of family emergencies. They seem to cause you to miss lots of things.
And that adventure was nothing compared to the one a couple of years ago, when you made allegations against the Manager, then insisted the Village spend $5000 on an investigation that pointed to you as the miscreant. And again, you then challenged the conclusion of the investigation on which you insisted, you never apologized to anyone, and you even slithered away without consequence, so that money wasn't exactly well spent, either.
So please be a bit more careful and judicious when you get into your mode of imagining bogeymen and criminals, and you start launching accusations of people. It's poor form, it's very untidy, and it costs the Village money.
Thanks, Bryan.
PS, Bryan: I hope everything is OK with your family. You missed this week's Commission meeting, due to a "family emergency." You seem to have an unnerving amount of family emergencies. They seem to cause you to miss lots of things.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
I Should Have to Work Harder to Talk About a Commission Meeting Than the Commissioners Do?
I have to admit, I was pretty concerned about tonight's meeting once I saw the agenda. There was lots of stuff, and some of it was legitimately worth some conversation. I was trying to imagine how much of it would be continued to a subsequent meeting once we reached 11:00.
And we started about 10-15 minutes late. Watts and Cooper were late. The only ones there on time were Anderson, Ross, and Jacobs. Only that majority. You see where I'm going? No? Here's the relevant frame of reference. Last month, we started exactly on time, causing Anderson and Ross, who were two minutes late, to scurry to the dais. You get it now? Jacobs can start on time if only Watts and Cooper are there, but he has to wait if only Anderson and Ross are there. I think you get it. Of course it's silly and childish, but it's how it is.
And then, stuff starts getting pulled. Big stuff. Enough stuff to give the impression of a meeting we could breeze through. There wasn't much initial public comment, either. So this is beginning to look smooth.
Until we got to Board/Committee reports. It wasn't the reports themselves. Only two Boards/Committees reported, and both reports were brief. The issue was that we ended the six-month trial of moving Board/Committee reports from the end of Commission meetings to the beginning. I promise you there was not 5-10 minutes worth of discussion anyone could reasonably have about whether to move these reports back where they were. But 5-10 minutes of this, pretending it made any difference, were spent. Are we headed back to a four hour meeting?
The next issue was very big: Annexation. Apparently, it wasn't big enough to attract any more than the usual eight of us, but it should have been. We were to hear the results of a study of annexing whatever we're supposed to consider annexing, but our planners revealed they did not complete the study, so there was no report, and an imminent workshop was therefore not scheduled. Next.
The Consent Agenda was passed, except for the minutes. Frankly, I'm tired of writing about the minutes. The whole topic is breathtakingly foolish. It's nothing but empty posturing. Here was tonight's version: Roxy Ross had very, very many amendments to the minutes in question. But Jacobs, who is still on a crusade against Roxy, for some ancient and imagined reasons, and Watts, who seems to have gone back to doing what her handlers tell her, didn't want to accommodate Roxy. I'll tell you now, to spare you the suspense, that Cooper never showed up. He never picked up his packet in advance anyway, as he never does, so it's unlikely he would have had anything intelligent or substantial to add. Jacobs' initial snide crack was that the minutes didn't need amending, since they were wonderful. But since Jacobs isn't about anything, and simply reacts contrarily to whatever Ross says, he found himself a minute later saying he found "numerous errors" in the minutes he just said were wonderful. It seems he doesn't listen to himself, or he gets himself confused. Watts also argued against correcting the minutes, saying she didn't want to make the Clerk spend inordinate time fixing them. It seemed to her like such a nice and thoughtful argument that she forgot it was on the strength of her vote more than anyone else's that the Clerk was charged with this silly "expanded minutes" exercise to begin with. So the minutes did not get amended. Jacobs and Watts won. Or they lost. Depending on what they want to portray as their interest du jour, or du moment.
A discussion about property taxes, and providing relief for disadvantaged "seniors," was similarly silly. It was all about populist pandering, and it failed to take into account a major error in the State regulations. Chuck Ross tried to explain this to the Commission and the Village Attorney, but he was probably explaining it in Chinese. They didn't get it.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, was it. There were just a couple of public comments/swipes at the end, and we were out of there in two hours. Just like in the old days of competent and goal-directed Commissions.
PS: It's possible I made a mistake and should stand corrected. One reader, who was looking at her watch, instead of estimating in retrospect, as I did, says the meeting started at 7:05. The underlying contrast to last month, and the underlying point, remain, however. In fact, Jacobs would not start last night's meeting, even though he, Anderson, and Ross were there. Watts came along at some point, went to the dais, then walked back out of the room. Jacobs still wouldn't start the meeting. When she came back, he started. So was the actual start 7:05, and not 7:10 or so, as my reader says? Could be. It seemed later, but it could have been the annoyance, resentment, and impatience talking. After all, at that point, I was still anticipating a very long meeting.
And we started about 10-15 minutes late. Watts and Cooper were late. The only ones there on time were Anderson, Ross, and Jacobs. Only that majority. You see where I'm going? No? Here's the relevant frame of reference. Last month, we started exactly on time, causing Anderson and Ross, who were two minutes late, to scurry to the dais. You get it now? Jacobs can start on time if only Watts and Cooper are there, but he has to wait if only Anderson and Ross are there. I think you get it. Of course it's silly and childish, but it's how it is.
And then, stuff starts getting pulled. Big stuff. Enough stuff to give the impression of a meeting we could breeze through. There wasn't much initial public comment, either. So this is beginning to look smooth.
Until we got to Board/Committee reports. It wasn't the reports themselves. Only two Boards/Committees reported, and both reports were brief. The issue was that we ended the six-month trial of moving Board/Committee reports from the end of Commission meetings to the beginning. I promise you there was not 5-10 minutes worth of discussion anyone could reasonably have about whether to move these reports back where they were. But 5-10 minutes of this, pretending it made any difference, were spent. Are we headed back to a four hour meeting?
The next issue was very big: Annexation. Apparently, it wasn't big enough to attract any more than the usual eight of us, but it should have been. We were to hear the results of a study of annexing whatever we're supposed to consider annexing, but our planners revealed they did not complete the study, so there was no report, and an imminent workshop was therefore not scheduled. Next.
The Consent Agenda was passed, except for the minutes. Frankly, I'm tired of writing about the minutes. The whole topic is breathtakingly foolish. It's nothing but empty posturing. Here was tonight's version: Roxy Ross had very, very many amendments to the minutes in question. But Jacobs, who is still on a crusade against Roxy, for some ancient and imagined reasons, and Watts, who seems to have gone back to doing what her handlers tell her, didn't want to accommodate Roxy. I'll tell you now, to spare you the suspense, that Cooper never showed up. He never picked up his packet in advance anyway, as he never does, so it's unlikely he would have had anything intelligent or substantial to add. Jacobs' initial snide crack was that the minutes didn't need amending, since they were wonderful. But since Jacobs isn't about anything, and simply reacts contrarily to whatever Ross says, he found himself a minute later saying he found "numerous errors" in the minutes he just said were wonderful. It seems he doesn't listen to himself, or he gets himself confused. Watts also argued against correcting the minutes, saying she didn't want to make the Clerk spend inordinate time fixing them. It seemed to her like such a nice and thoughtful argument that she forgot it was on the strength of her vote more than anyone else's that the Clerk was charged with this silly "expanded minutes" exercise to begin with. So the minutes did not get amended. Jacobs and Watts won. Or they lost. Depending on what they want to portray as their interest du jour, or du moment.
A discussion about property taxes, and providing relief for disadvantaged "seniors," was similarly silly. It was all about populist pandering, and it failed to take into account a major error in the State regulations. Chuck Ross tried to explain this to the Commission and the Village Attorney, but he was probably explaining it in Chinese. They didn't get it.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, was it. There were just a couple of public comments/swipes at the end, and we were out of there in two hours. Just like in the old days of competent and goal-directed Commissions.
PS: It's possible I made a mistake and should stand corrected. One reader, who was looking at her watch, instead of estimating in retrospect, as I did, says the meeting started at 7:05. The underlying contrast to last month, and the underlying point, remain, however. In fact, Jacobs would not start last night's meeting, even though he, Anderson, and Ross were there. Watts came along at some point, went to the dais, then walked back out of the room. Jacobs still wouldn't start the meeting. When she came back, he started. So was the actual start 7:05, and not 7:10 or so, as my reader says? Could be. It seemed later, but it could have been the annoyance, resentment, and impatience talking. After all, at that point, I was still anticipating a very long meeting.
Monday, December 3, 2012
I'm Probably the Wrong Person to Ask.
Two people have asked me about the CrimeWatch meeting on Saturday. Specifically, each asked about, or wanted to discuss, the attendance. Very specifically, they wanted to know which Commissioners attended, and why those who didn't didn't.
I'm not what you could call unbiased about this. The featured guests were our police officers, including the Chief, and the host, so to speak, was the CrimeWatch Chairman. So to begin with, I think lots of VP residents should have attended. We all should have been interested in the topic, and we should have shown respect to Chuck Ross, Ray Atesiano, Nick Wollschlager, and Charlie Dayoub. So the 15-20 people who were there were not what the doctor ordered. Not this doctor, anyway.
As to the question and the topic at hand, two of our five Commissioners were there. They were the two who come to everything, all the time, who get their hands dirty, who participate, who work at their municipal jobs, and who care. (Did I mention my lack of neutrality? I will not, however, confess to a lack of honesty. I'm telling it like it is. If you don't like how it is, I don't like it, either.)
Ah, yes, the question of who wasn't there, and why they weren't there. Well, one Commissioner who wasn't there is never there. Bryan Cooper has been explicit in letting us know he isn't coming to Village events of any kind, and the reason is that he's punishing the Village, because a prior Commission, and an ad hoc committee, voted against the lines he wanted painted in the street. I wish I could dress this up, but I have to be as clear about it as Bryan was. There's just no good alternative way to spin it.
Barbara Watts tells us she's very busy with her day job. I don't know if that's why she wasn't there. If I recall correctly, she wasn't at the last CrimeWatch event, either. She's also announced in the past that she actually never wanted to be a Commissioner, but she couldn't find someone else to run. Why she thought she should do something she didn't want to do, and for which she is clearly unprepared, is beyond me. It's as if it's someone else who makes her decisions for her. As if someone said to her, if you don't want to run, you'll have to find someone else. If you can't find someone else, you'll have to run yourself, whether you want to or not. So maybe her heart isn't really fully in this gig. If I thought someone of her chronological maturity and successful station is life would be a bit more independent-minded, I was apparently wrong.
Noah Jacobs sometimes shows up for things, but often enough not. In the past, he's made noises suggesting it may be a matter of his religious observance, but his rare appearance at events that occur on a Friday night or a Saturday give the impression it's not necessarily that. What else would prevent the Mayor from attending Village events? Beats me.
Here's my thinking, though. Maybe some Commissioners didn't come, because the host was Chuck Ross, and they have something against him personally. Or maybe none of these three is much interested in the Village at all. Or maybe they're busy with other parts of their lives, and the Village just isn't a high priority for them.
These three people ran for office, whether they wanted the office or not. And when they won their elections, they accepted the office. They all cash the checks they receive from all of us. One of these people, the one with not a moment's relevant experience or familiarity with the Village, agreed to be Mayor. And none of them can be relied upon to attend Village events. There's something very wrong with this. If any of them had appropriate respect for the residents of the Park, they would resign. I quit holding my breath a long time ago.
I'm not what you could call unbiased about this. The featured guests were our police officers, including the Chief, and the host, so to speak, was the CrimeWatch Chairman. So to begin with, I think lots of VP residents should have attended. We all should have been interested in the topic, and we should have shown respect to Chuck Ross, Ray Atesiano, Nick Wollschlager, and Charlie Dayoub. So the 15-20 people who were there were not what the doctor ordered. Not this doctor, anyway.
As to the question and the topic at hand, two of our five Commissioners were there. They were the two who come to everything, all the time, who get their hands dirty, who participate, who work at their municipal jobs, and who care. (Did I mention my lack of neutrality? I will not, however, confess to a lack of honesty. I'm telling it like it is. If you don't like how it is, I don't like it, either.)
Ah, yes, the question of who wasn't there, and why they weren't there. Well, one Commissioner who wasn't there is never there. Bryan Cooper has been explicit in letting us know he isn't coming to Village events of any kind, and the reason is that he's punishing the Village, because a prior Commission, and an ad hoc committee, voted against the lines he wanted painted in the street. I wish I could dress this up, but I have to be as clear about it as Bryan was. There's just no good alternative way to spin it.
Barbara Watts tells us she's very busy with her day job. I don't know if that's why she wasn't there. If I recall correctly, she wasn't at the last CrimeWatch event, either. She's also announced in the past that she actually never wanted to be a Commissioner, but she couldn't find someone else to run. Why she thought she should do something she didn't want to do, and for which she is clearly unprepared, is beyond me. It's as if it's someone else who makes her decisions for her. As if someone said to her, if you don't want to run, you'll have to find someone else. If you can't find someone else, you'll have to run yourself, whether you want to or not. So maybe her heart isn't really fully in this gig. If I thought someone of her chronological maturity and successful station is life would be a bit more independent-minded, I was apparently wrong.
Noah Jacobs sometimes shows up for things, but often enough not. In the past, he's made noises suggesting it may be a matter of his religious observance, but his rare appearance at events that occur on a Friday night or a Saturday give the impression it's not necessarily that. What else would prevent the Mayor from attending Village events? Beats me.
Here's my thinking, though. Maybe some Commissioners didn't come, because the host was Chuck Ross, and they have something against him personally. Or maybe none of these three is much interested in the Village at all. Or maybe they're busy with other parts of their lives, and the Village just isn't a high priority for them.
These three people ran for office, whether they wanted the office or not. And when they won their elections, they accepted the office. They all cash the checks they receive from all of us. One of these people, the one with not a moment's relevant experience or familiarity with the Village, agreed to be Mayor. And none of them can be relied upon to attend Village events. There's something very wrong with this. If any of them had appropriate respect for the residents of the Park, they would resign. I quit holding my breath a long time ago.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
They Don't Call it Crime "Watch" for Nothing.
Once again, Chuck Ross put on a Crime Watch meeting/breakfast this AM. His guests were Ray Atesiano, our interim Chief, Nick Wollschlager, and Charlie Dayoub. And Charlie's guest was Melody, the dog. Not the "Take a Bite Out of Crime" dog, but a real dog that Charlie is training to sniff out real drugs.
It turns out this is not the first time Charlie has trained a crime dog. He learned the trade somewhere else. And it's sort of a funny story how and why we got the dog. As you know, we rely on the kindness of other municipalities, as Blanche Dubois might have said, when it comes to equipment, like police cruisers. Ray now, and Mitch Glansberg before him, are tight with some of the better off municipalities, and we get some pretty nice hand-me-downs. One of them was a cruiser already outfitted for a dog, or, as they say in police parlance, a canine. So we had Charlie, we got the car, and all we needed was a canine. Charlie says the usual cost for such a beast and the training it requires is about $8-9K. Apparently, we got the whole show for $3000. So now, Charlie is training the dog, I mean canine, to sniff out marijuana, heroin, cocaine, Ecstacy, and methamphetamine.
We got to meet Ray "up close and personal[ly]," too, this morning. He's a very interesting guy. He trained as a corrections officer, then got into police work, then got himself an impressive gig in LA as a detective for three and a half years, then got "homesick" and came back here, to Hialeah, for 10 years, then reshaped crime prevention/intervention and detective work in Sunny Isles Beach, then started his own detective business, and did that until the economy crashed. For as long as it lasts (he sounds quite ambitious), we have his remarkable services. And it became clear how advantageous to us those services have been already.
Ray's favorite word is proactive. Charlie says you can't train just any dog to be a productive police canine. The dog has to be energetic and goal-directed. That's Ray. He knows the business, of criminals and apprehending them, very well, and he takes the long view. He told us several times that an arrest is a very valuable thing, not so much because of the immediate result it produces, but even more because it inhibits further crime. A person who is arrested somewhere is not coming back to that location. So he told us it may sound like bad news, but it's really good news, that our department had 653 arrests this year, not counting the 23 from last night along the FEC track. The second highest number in BP history is less than 200 in a year. It's not that those arrested were committing major crimes here at the time of the arrest. It's that it's too much trouble, and too dangerous, to commit even minor mischief here, and these mischief-makers won't come back. And when our department makes an arrest, for anything, they are very effective. "Clearance rates," the percent of arrests that result in solid charges, is now flirting with 80% for BP. Typical rates for other municipalities often crack 10%, but not often 30%.
And the enterprise rests, as we've been told so many times before, on us. It's our awareness and attentiveness to the neighborhood, and, Ray and Chuck say ad nauseum, our readiness to call in if we see anything that doesn't look right. Or anything that doesn't look familiar, or expected. Ray insists that we call. "Tips" like this are what the police thrive on. The worst possible result of calling is that the police go investigate, and they find out nothing is wrong. This does not count as a bad result.
We had 15-20 BP residents at this morning's event. Nobody was disappointed. Turnout like this is better than nothing, but it's not good. Chuck says over 400 people are "members" of CrimeWatch, and he'd like to make it 600 or more. It would have been great to have loaded the room with interested neighbors. Please come next time, if you didn't come this time, and tell your neighbors to come. In fact, pass this blog post along. And make sure Chuck knows about you. Contact him at CrimeWatch, and get on the list. You'll get e-mails of anything to do with CrimeWatch and related Village events. Not that it matters, but it's free.
It turns out this is not the first time Charlie has trained a crime dog. He learned the trade somewhere else. And it's sort of a funny story how and why we got the dog. As you know, we rely on the kindness of other municipalities, as Blanche Dubois might have said, when it comes to equipment, like police cruisers. Ray now, and Mitch Glansberg before him, are tight with some of the better off municipalities, and we get some pretty nice hand-me-downs. One of them was a cruiser already outfitted for a dog, or, as they say in police parlance, a canine. So we had Charlie, we got the car, and all we needed was a canine. Charlie says the usual cost for such a beast and the training it requires is about $8-9K. Apparently, we got the whole show for $3000. So now, Charlie is training the dog, I mean canine, to sniff out marijuana, heroin, cocaine, Ecstacy, and methamphetamine.
We got to meet Ray "up close and personal[ly]," too, this morning. He's a very interesting guy. He trained as a corrections officer, then got into police work, then got himself an impressive gig in LA as a detective for three and a half years, then got "homesick" and came back here, to Hialeah, for 10 years, then reshaped crime prevention/intervention and detective work in Sunny Isles Beach, then started his own detective business, and did that until the economy crashed. For as long as it lasts (he sounds quite ambitious), we have his remarkable services. And it became clear how advantageous to us those services have been already.
Ray's favorite word is proactive. Charlie says you can't train just any dog to be a productive police canine. The dog has to be energetic and goal-directed. That's Ray. He knows the business, of criminals and apprehending them, very well, and he takes the long view. He told us several times that an arrest is a very valuable thing, not so much because of the immediate result it produces, but even more because it inhibits further crime. A person who is arrested somewhere is not coming back to that location. So he told us it may sound like bad news, but it's really good news, that our department had 653 arrests this year, not counting the 23 from last night along the FEC track. The second highest number in BP history is less than 200 in a year. It's not that those arrested were committing major crimes here at the time of the arrest. It's that it's too much trouble, and too dangerous, to commit even minor mischief here, and these mischief-makers won't come back. And when our department makes an arrest, for anything, they are very effective. "Clearance rates," the percent of arrests that result in solid charges, is now flirting with 80% for BP. Typical rates for other municipalities often crack 10%, but not often 30%.
And the enterprise rests, as we've been told so many times before, on us. It's our awareness and attentiveness to the neighborhood, and, Ray and Chuck say ad nauseum, our readiness to call in if we see anything that doesn't look right. Or anything that doesn't look familiar, or expected. Ray insists that we call. "Tips" like this are what the police thrive on. The worst possible result of calling is that the police go investigate, and they find out nothing is wrong. This does not count as a bad result.
We had 15-20 BP residents at this morning's event. Nobody was disappointed. Turnout like this is better than nothing, but it's not good. Chuck says over 400 people are "members" of CrimeWatch, and he'd like to make it 600 or more. It would have been great to have loaded the room with interested neighbors. Please come next time, if you didn't come this time, and tell your neighbors to come. In fact, pass this blog post along. And make sure Chuck knows about you. Contact him at CrimeWatch, and get on the list. You'll get e-mails of anything to do with CrimeWatch and related Village events. Not that it matters, but it's free.