Professional football players won a big settlement yesterday. As a group, they were paid $765M to compensate them for the consequences of head injuries sustained while playing football. It's unclear what that will do for the live ones. It may provide some comfort for the families of the dead ones. I heard the wife of the late Tom McHale on the radio today. McHale, an offensive lineman, died in 2008, and gave his brain to science for study of football injuries. Ms McHale said players back in her husband's day (1987-1995) "didn't know" football could cause brain damage and other serious injuries. Boy, talk about being out of the loop, or out to lunch. What did McHale think was the reason his schoolmates' parents didn't want them playing Pop Warner football? But now, ex-players and families of ex-players have found someone to blame for the injuries. And it appears clearly not to be themselves.
It's the same phenomenon as the smokers who got lung and heart disease, then decided it was the fault of tobacco companies, which fooled everyone into thinking there was nothing unhealthy about smoking. Unless you listened to your parents tell you smoking would stunt your growth, or watched any of many movies of the '30s, '40s, and '50s, in which there were lots of passing references to the damage caused by smoking. It was common knowledge. There were practically jokes about it. But no, claim the "victims." They had no idea, and these innocents were duped by the tobacco industry.
Biscayne Park has a serious fiscal problem. A growing number of us recognize this problem, and we're talking about it. The Village does not have the revenue necessary to keep itself going in a reasonable condition. We're cautioning that steps should be taken to prevent a serious complication, like collapse of the neighborhood. The two most obvious and easiest to implement interventions are increasing taxes significantly, or annexing a revenue-producing territory nearby. We have exhausted, or made as good use as we can of, other alternatives.
If those with the power to make appropriate decisions don't do anything about this problem, if they say the cautions are just hype, or scare tactics, if they say they don't believe that smoking causes health problems, or it won't in them, or football doesn't really cause head injuries, or there really isn't global warming, or an eventual end to fossil fuels, then they will have sentenced this neighborhood to a failure from which it cannot emerge.
We need to do something, and we need to do it now. We should have an open and formal discussion of annexation. There are pros and cons to it. But it is a solution to our problem. If we decide not to go this route, after sober consideration, there is a plan B. We will have to increase taxes. We can prefer that. But we can't prefer nothing. Unless we don't really care, or we want to surrender. No decision is a decision.
And if Commissioners don't act, whom will they blame for the consequences? Me? You? Ana Garcia? Past Commissions? The County? Maybe the NFL and the tobacco companies.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Lots of CrimeWatch: Not Much Crime. With One Exception.
Didn't we just talk about CrimeWatch? And not long ago before that?
Tuesday night, some of us went up to North Miami Beach to attend Ana Garcia's anointment, I mean swearing in, as the new City Manager for CNMB. Their gain is our loss. And they're breathtakingly lucky to have her. It seemed as if the whole County knows it. Ana had supporters and well-wishers from the depth and breadth of her career, co-workers and supervisors and people who have been pleased and honored to work with her, from South Miami, Palmetto Bay, and Biscayne Park, someone, I think, from Miami Beach, someone from Surfside, an old co-worker who is in Palm Beach County now. Notables including Sally Heyman and Daphne Campbell. Family, of course. And among the BP contingent were our police Chief, Ray Atesiano, and two of his officers, Larry Churchman and Nick Wollschlager.
Well, Ray was back last night, too. This time, he and Chuck Ross put on yet another CrimeWatch get-together, in front of Village Hall. Three others of Ray's force were there for the presentation.
The content was the usual. Ray and Chuck reviewed stats, and they reminded us of procedures. Specifically, they reminded Winston Zacca that he's resident Winston Zacca, not officer Winston Zacca. Winston, just make the call; don't help. We love you. We don't want you having any trouble that's not yours to have.
It's old news how remarkably well we're doing here. Crime is about as low as it could be. The comparison is not to other municipalities. It's to gated communities. We are, as Chuck says, off the charts in low crime and high clearance. In other words, it's very unlikely a crime will be committed in Biscayne Park. And if one is, it's almost guaranteed the perpetrator will be caught. People talked about gating this community, mainly with closed streets. The fact is, it isn't necessary. With the level of police activity we have, there's barely enough crime to try to prevent with walls and moats.
And it's not only the police, it's also resident monitoring and communication through CrimeWatch. Someone last night talked about a recent gathering at El Portal, where there were some very serious attacks. One of the El Portal residents frankly bemoaned that BP residents knew about the attacks before El Portal residents did. And El Portal is two municipalities away. Their police talk to our police, who talk to Chuck Ross, who keeps us all in the know and in the loop. Tight, tight, tight.
Attendance was very satisfying for last night's get-together. The event was held outside, so all the mosquitos were invited. And they all attended. So did all the usual usuals among us (the Andersons, Roxy Ross, Linda Dillon, Rosemary Wais, Brian McNoldy and Brad Piper, Pat whose last name I don't know). And the less usual usuals, like Chester Morris, Richard Ederr, Felix Bradjic, Winston Zacca, Walter and Erica Pettis, Judi Hamelburg, David Tunnell. And there were lots of people whom I hardly ever see, and some whom I never see, including Eddie Bridges, a new resident who introduced himself. Chuck snagged one new CrimeWatch member, a woman named Sabrina. It was an impressive crowd.
Chester Morris must have asked four or five times where the other three Commissioners were. When Chester was a Commissioner, he would have attended a gathering like this. He attended all Village events. He attends most of them now. I know, Chester. I know you did. I know you would. I know you do. I'm sorry, I don't know where the other three Commissioners are. Maybe they're home, watching cartoons, or keeping up with the Kardashians. Maybe they have bigger fish to fry. Yes, they should be here. Please tell them. Chester said he has a commitment every Tuesday night, so he can no longer come to Commission meetings. Now that he's not a Commissioner any more. Unlike some Commissioners who don't necessarily come to Commission meetings, even though they are Commissioners. I told Chester to send Maria Camara his thoughts, and ask her to read them as his public comment in absentia. Which she will be more than happy to do.
It was odd, really. Was the crime that the majority of our Commission didn't bother to attend this event? Or would it have been a bigger crime if they had?
Tuesday night, some of us went up to North Miami Beach to attend Ana Garcia's anointment, I mean swearing in, as the new City Manager for CNMB. Their gain is our loss. And they're breathtakingly lucky to have her. It seemed as if the whole County knows it. Ana had supporters and well-wishers from the depth and breadth of her career, co-workers and supervisors and people who have been pleased and honored to work with her, from South Miami, Palmetto Bay, and Biscayne Park, someone, I think, from Miami Beach, someone from Surfside, an old co-worker who is in Palm Beach County now. Notables including Sally Heyman and Daphne Campbell. Family, of course. And among the BP contingent were our police Chief, Ray Atesiano, and two of his officers, Larry Churchman and Nick Wollschlager.
Well, Ray was back last night, too. This time, he and Chuck Ross put on yet another CrimeWatch get-together, in front of Village Hall. Three others of Ray's force were there for the presentation.
The content was the usual. Ray and Chuck reviewed stats, and they reminded us of procedures. Specifically, they reminded Winston Zacca that he's resident Winston Zacca, not officer Winston Zacca. Winston, just make the call; don't help. We love you. We don't want you having any trouble that's not yours to have.
It's old news how remarkably well we're doing here. Crime is about as low as it could be. The comparison is not to other municipalities. It's to gated communities. We are, as Chuck says, off the charts in low crime and high clearance. In other words, it's very unlikely a crime will be committed in Biscayne Park. And if one is, it's almost guaranteed the perpetrator will be caught. People talked about gating this community, mainly with closed streets. The fact is, it isn't necessary. With the level of police activity we have, there's barely enough crime to try to prevent with walls and moats.
And it's not only the police, it's also resident monitoring and communication through CrimeWatch. Someone last night talked about a recent gathering at El Portal, where there were some very serious attacks. One of the El Portal residents frankly bemoaned that BP residents knew about the attacks before El Portal residents did. And El Portal is two municipalities away. Their police talk to our police, who talk to Chuck Ross, who keeps us all in the know and in the loop. Tight, tight, tight.
Attendance was very satisfying for last night's get-together. The event was held outside, so all the mosquitos were invited. And they all attended. So did all the usual usuals among us (the Andersons, Roxy Ross, Linda Dillon, Rosemary Wais, Brian McNoldy and Brad Piper, Pat whose last name I don't know). And the less usual usuals, like Chester Morris, Richard Ederr, Felix Bradjic, Winston Zacca, Walter and Erica Pettis, Judi Hamelburg, David Tunnell. And there were lots of people whom I hardly ever see, and some whom I never see, including Eddie Bridges, a new resident who introduced himself. Chuck snagged one new CrimeWatch member, a woman named Sabrina. It was an impressive crowd.
Chester Morris must have asked four or five times where the other three Commissioners were. When Chester was a Commissioner, he would have attended a gathering like this. He attended all Village events. He attends most of them now. I know, Chester. I know you did. I know you would. I know you do. I'm sorry, I don't know where the other three Commissioners are. Maybe they're home, watching cartoons, or keeping up with the Kardashians. Maybe they have bigger fish to fry. Yes, they should be here. Please tell them. Chester said he has a commitment every Tuesday night, so he can no longer come to Commission meetings. Now that he's not a Commissioner any more. Unlike some Commissioners who don't necessarily come to Commission meetings, even though they are Commissioners. I told Chester to send Maria Camara his thoughts, and ask her to read them as his public comment in absentia. Which she will be more than happy to do.
It was odd, really. Was the crime that the majority of our Commission didn't bother to attend this event? Or would it have been a bigger crime if they had?
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Not Your Sanford, Florida's, CrimeWatch
Biscayne Park CrimeWatch has been in existence for over 30 years. It was started by Ethel Hall, until it eventually went defunct. About 8 years ago, Steve Bernard made a move to revive CCW, and he convinced Joe Chao to be the Chair. Joe remained Chair for a couple of years or so, and the Chair is now Chuck Ross. The "Chair," in the case of Citizens' CrimeWatch (CCW), is the coordinator and the person who provides liaison to the police, and outreach to Village residents.
CCW is structured and intended as follows. All law enforcement activity is handled strictly by the police. Unlike Sanford, Florida, we do not have cowboys, and no one wants cowboys. CCW has two functions. One is to provide information to residents, regarding crime activity in the Village, and the other is to encourage residents to be vigilant regarding crime, and to report it. Obviously, all Village residents are affected if there is crime in the Village, and all benefit from interception or prevention of crime. Village residents are "members" of CCW, because they request to be. What this entails is contacting the Chairperson (biscaynepark_crimewatch@yahoo.com), and asking to be put on the list. All you have to provide is the e-mail address where you want to be contacted, and maybe a phone number, though this has given way to e-mail.
If Village residents observe anything that looks out of the ordinary, or which is probably or definitely crime-related, their task is to call the police. Residents should make careful note, write down descriptions, license tag numbers, or any other identifying information, and report them. The number for emergencies is 911. The non-emergency number is 305-4-POLICE (305-476-5423). The police will handle these calls as they always do. If there is any notable consequence, the Chief will tell Chuck Ross, and Chuck will send out notices to CCW "members." Nobody wants you to approach a suspicious person, and nobody wants you to intervene. So please don't. Just make the call.
The "owner" of CrimeWatch is the police. The CEO/COO is the Chairperson, now Chuck. Chuck meets with the Police Chief at least once a week, to review crime events, trends, interventions, and any other related topics.
At present, there are about 450 "members" of Biscayne Park CCW. Chuck would like it, and the police would like it, if every resident of the Village was a member. There is no cost and no obligation to being a CCW member. It merely shows community support and allows "members" to be kept up to date with Village crime-related events.
CCW is effective. Crime events have been prevented, interrupted, or solved because of the activity of interested and involved BP residents. Both Chuck, and Joe Chao before him, have won awards for the strength, organization, and effectiveness of BP CCW.
Contact Chuck. Get on the list. Get on a winning team. Be a winner yourself.
CCW is structured and intended as follows. All law enforcement activity is handled strictly by the police. Unlike Sanford, Florida, we do not have cowboys, and no one wants cowboys. CCW has two functions. One is to provide information to residents, regarding crime activity in the Village, and the other is to encourage residents to be vigilant regarding crime, and to report it. Obviously, all Village residents are affected if there is crime in the Village, and all benefit from interception or prevention of crime. Village residents are "members" of CCW, because they request to be. What this entails is contacting the Chairperson (biscaynepark_crimewatch@yahoo.com), and asking to be put on the list. All you have to provide is the e-mail address where you want to be contacted, and maybe a phone number, though this has given way to e-mail.
If Village residents observe anything that looks out of the ordinary, or which is probably or definitely crime-related, their task is to call the police. Residents should make careful note, write down descriptions, license tag numbers, or any other identifying information, and report them. The number for emergencies is 911. The non-emergency number is 305-4-POLICE (305-476-5423). The police will handle these calls as they always do. If there is any notable consequence, the Chief will tell Chuck Ross, and Chuck will send out notices to CCW "members." Nobody wants you to approach a suspicious person, and nobody wants you to intervene. So please don't. Just make the call.
The "owner" of CrimeWatch is the police. The CEO/COO is the Chairperson, now Chuck. Chuck meets with the Police Chief at least once a week, to review crime events, trends, interventions, and any other related topics.
At present, there are about 450 "members" of Biscayne Park CCW. Chuck would like it, and the police would like it, if every resident of the Village was a member. There is no cost and no obligation to being a CCW member. It merely shows community support and allows "members" to be kept up to date with Village crime-related events.
CCW is effective. Crime events have been prevented, interrupted, or solved because of the activity of interested and involved BP residents. Both Chuck, and Joe Chao before him, have won awards for the strength, organization, and effectiveness of BP CCW.
Contact Chuck. Get on the list. Get on a winning team. Be a winner yourself.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Home on the Range: Gaucho Ranch
We've already discussed local sources of real and good food, and frankly, I've already mentioned Gaucho Ranch. But I have them on the brain a bit, and I thought I'd talk more about them.
Gaucho Ranch is a purveyor of quality meat from properly raised and handled animals. The establishment mostly sells beef, but they also stock free range chicken from Pennsylvania, eggs from free range chickens, pork from "organic" pig farms in upstate New York, and various "organic" sausages. The beef comes from ranges in Uruguay.
The founder of Gaucho Ranch is Pablo Liberato, an Argentinian who worked in "marketing" in New York, until he got the idea to start his own meat business. So he moved here, started importing from the pampas of Uruguay, and sold wholesale to discriminating restaurants. Eventually, he figured out there's a retail market for him, and he opened the "store" to the public.
I say "store" because good luck finding it. Let me make it easier: it's at 7251 NE 2nd Avenue. Just north of the MacArthur Dairy. The building, if you can see it inside the security fence, is clearly marked: 7251. Now find it. Here, it's "Loft 113." In the back. Way in the back. If you think you're lost, call Pablo at 305-609-8075. I know exactly where it is, and I've passed it myself.
Here's Gaucho Ranch's deal. The food is excellent. They have lots of cuts of beef, and an assortment of the rest of the stuff. They also sell nice barbeque set-ups and equipment, seasonings, and mate'. Why they're big on mate' is beyond me. I guess South Americans like it. And they sell mate' gourds and straws. If you're a mate' aficionado, or you just like it, then you know more about it than I do. And the decor is very engaging. Lots of posters and paraphernalia related to South America. And Gaucho Ranch trinkets. And Pablo is a super nice guy. Very welcoming.
They also sell their own, homemade chimichurri. The green one is top notch. I recently bought some steaks there, and they were pre-marinated in their new red chimichurri sauce. Get the green one. It's better.
So in this sense, Gaucho Ranch is a meat market; a butcher shop, with all the meat pre-packaged and frozen. It's not cheap (not as expensive as Proper Sausages, though), but you won't be sorry. Very good food. And from real animals that didn't spend most of their lives miserable, unhealthy, and stressed out.
But here's the other thing about Gaucho Ranch. They do tastings. You should get on the list, if you want to know about them. You can call Pablo, send him an e-mail to pablo@gauchoranch.com, or go on their website: www.gauchoranch.com. (They'll also e-mail you the weekly deal, which is anywhere from 20% to 50% off whatever Pablo would like you to try.) The last time I went to a tasting, I went with Chuck and Roxy Ross. The cost was $25 a person, and it was at night. They have an expert grillmaster, Javier Costa, who serves wonderfully seasoned and marinated beef, perfectly cooked, and it's all you can eat. But we also had all we could eat of handmade cheese, made by a friend of Pablo's whose cheese shop is in the area, and all the wine we could drink. When we were there, there were probably five kinds of cheese, all terrific and very fresh, and one kind of wine. If you love it, which we did, you can buy a bottle to take home, which we also did. They also provide all you can eat of grilled vegetables.
These days, when everyone wants to eat right, and buy organics, we shouldn't forget the extra value of meat from properly handled animals. Not only do you feel better, because the animals are treated humanely, but it tastes better, too. And it's less toxic. Do yourself a favor. Check out Gaucho Ranch. As I said, you won't be sorry.
Gaucho Ranch is a purveyor of quality meat from properly raised and handled animals. The establishment mostly sells beef, but they also stock free range chicken from Pennsylvania, eggs from free range chickens, pork from "organic" pig farms in upstate New York, and various "organic" sausages. The beef comes from ranges in Uruguay.
The founder of Gaucho Ranch is Pablo Liberato, an Argentinian who worked in "marketing" in New York, until he got the idea to start his own meat business. So he moved here, started importing from the pampas of Uruguay, and sold wholesale to discriminating restaurants. Eventually, he figured out there's a retail market for him, and he opened the "store" to the public.
I say "store" because good luck finding it. Let me make it easier: it's at 7251 NE 2nd Avenue. Just north of the MacArthur Dairy. The building, if you can see it inside the security fence, is clearly marked: 7251. Now find it. Here, it's "Loft 113." In the back. Way in the back. If you think you're lost, call Pablo at 305-609-8075. I know exactly where it is, and I've passed it myself.
Here's Gaucho Ranch's deal. The food is excellent. They have lots of cuts of beef, and an assortment of the rest of the stuff. They also sell nice barbeque set-ups and equipment, seasonings, and mate'. Why they're big on mate' is beyond me. I guess South Americans like it. And they sell mate' gourds and straws. If you're a mate' aficionado, or you just like it, then you know more about it than I do. And the decor is very engaging. Lots of posters and paraphernalia related to South America. And Gaucho Ranch trinkets. And Pablo is a super nice guy. Very welcoming.
They also sell their own, homemade chimichurri. The green one is top notch. I recently bought some steaks there, and they were pre-marinated in their new red chimichurri sauce. Get the green one. It's better.
So in this sense, Gaucho Ranch is a meat market; a butcher shop, with all the meat pre-packaged and frozen. It's not cheap (not as expensive as Proper Sausages, though), but you won't be sorry. Very good food. And from real animals that didn't spend most of their lives miserable, unhealthy, and stressed out.
But here's the other thing about Gaucho Ranch. They do tastings. You should get on the list, if you want to know about them. You can call Pablo, send him an e-mail to pablo@gauchoranch.com, or go on their website: www.gauchoranch.com. (They'll also e-mail you the weekly deal, which is anywhere from 20% to 50% off whatever Pablo would like you to try.) The last time I went to a tasting, I went with Chuck and Roxy Ross. The cost was $25 a person, and it was at night. They have an expert grillmaster, Javier Costa, who serves wonderfully seasoned and marinated beef, perfectly cooked, and it's all you can eat. But we also had all we could eat of handmade cheese, made by a friend of Pablo's whose cheese shop is in the area, and all the wine we could drink. When we were there, there were probably five kinds of cheese, all terrific and very fresh, and one kind of wine. If you love it, which we did, you can buy a bottle to take home, which we also did. They also provide all you can eat of grilled vegetables.
These days, when everyone wants to eat right, and buy organics, we shouldn't forget the extra value of meat from properly handled animals. Not only do you feel better, because the animals are treated humanely, but it tastes better, too. And it's less toxic. Do yourself a favor. Check out Gaucho Ranch. As I said, you won't be sorry.
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Annexation Update by Chuck Ross
I drafted the post below before the Manager decided to call off the annexation workshop at a recent meeting this month. It appears that the number of registered voters who have moved into the new apartment complex Alta Mira (See post below) may have pushed the number to over 250 qualified electors (based on info from our Village planners). If it will require that the question of annexation be placed on the ballot, then the voters in the proposed area must vote by a majority to accept our proposal. Unfortunately we don't have the resources to spend on a venture where the outcome is up to voters who may be persuaded by misinformation to vote against the proposal. North Miami is moving to annex the same area and they have the resources to persuade and the leadership on their Council that we lack in Noah Jacobs.
Noah interrupted me at a recent meeting (as he often interrupts certain speakers) during Good and Welfare in the middle of my comments and told me that Government is "reactive;" that's how it works. I would say some governments are reactive-- the bad ones-- and Noah Jacobs is the definition of bad government with no vision. From the beginning, he absolutely failed to consider annexation as an option and bring it to a workshop to discuss the pros and cons. This matter has been on the table for over a year, and at least a third vote was needed to consider it. Anderson and Ross had the vision to consider the matter, while Cooper, Watts and Jacobs made it clear they were not open even to discussing it. Finally, more than a year later the Commission voted to have a workshop , but now the opportunity is mostly likely lost. This is "reactive" government, why it's bad, and one example of why the current leader is a failed leader.
This was a one time opportunity to annex an area that has a value of approx. 50% or $65,000,000 of our existing taxable base of $132,000,000-- all commercial properties--but because we didn't have proactive leadership, we likely missed it. If so, we now need to figure out another way to finance required infrastructure maintenance and upgrades, such as rehabilitating Village Hall, lighting around the Rec Center and in other areas of the Park, upgrading our roads and medians and building a sound barrier along the railroad tracks that many residents desire.
I would urge you to write the Commission and call for them to have the workshop to consider the pros and cons. Maybe I am wrong, and the possibility is not lost. Until it is fully vetted at an open forum, we will never know for sure.
There are other options to raise funds for the sorely needed infrastructure upgrades and improvements that involve higher taxes on our community. I can get into that in another post.
Chuck
Updated Post on Annexation:
First, the number of projected residents is higher than we thought. The study was only referencing existing residents, of which there are approximately 560. At Baywinds, there are 204 units, and the number of units will more than double. The potential number of residents may ultimately be over 1,100. If the existing qualified electors are currently approximately 220, then it could be estimated that there may ultimately be over 400. The number of residents and voters is all conjecture at this point. In contrast, in BP there are over 1,800 qualified electors and approx 3,100 residents, to put things in perspective.
All of the residents will be living in the two gated apartment complexes pictured below, and the rest of the properties in the proposed annexation area are commercial.
If you visit the apartment complexes, you will note that the existing complex called Baywinds, pictured below, is well maintained. It is managed by a large company located in Florida.
The other complex, called Alta Mira and pictured above, is managed by a large national corporation. It is still under construction, and very few units have been rented to date. How many people will live there, and the ultimate number of qualified electors as stated earlier, is unknown.
PROPOSED BOUNDARY:
The proposed boundary across the RR tracks that includes the two residential apartment complexes above starts south of 121st St, and extends to the north side of 119th St, over to Biscayne Blvd, and then South to the Auto Shop just south of the All Florida Pools building. (See area Highlighted in Pink in the chart below) The proposed annexation area would result in approx $65 Million in taxable value of commercial properties. Our current taxable value for Biscayne Park is $132 Million, so this would bring the Village to $197 Million in taxable value.
There was a meeting with a local realtor who was originally opposed to the annexation proposal, but after the above information was provided, the realtor decided that it was a good idea for the Village in order to access additional revenue sources!
I hope that the Village Commission will move forward and consider voting to annex the commercial properties.
Chuck
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Couldn't See the Forest for the Trees. The Budget Workshops.
Monday night, the Commission scrutinized the proposed budget for the coming year. Commissioners took a great interest in every detail of the budget. They examined it, and questioned Village staff about it, line by line. The problem was, there was no unifying concept for the Village. No general direction. No sense of the place, or hierarchy of broad priorities.
For example, at one point, Bryan Cooper mentioned the possibility that the Village could become "insolvent" if it had to contract for hurricane clean-up, and couldn't pay the bill, because there's no real reserve. But Bryan never said if he thought insolvency was a problem. He certainly didn't propose to do anything to prevent it. Resident AJ Gallo, who brought his fine-toothed comb to the budget meeting last year, and gave it a vigorous workout last night, too, suggested the Village should simply get itself absorbed by Miami Shores. Bryan never indicated whether he agreed, or he didn't. He couldn't even communicate whether he cared if there was a Village of Biscayne Park.
Commissioners clearly provided for themselves a pleasing and stimulating self-flattery in their searching questions of Village staff. Bryan in particular wanted to see real data that would allow him to determine if it was more taxing on police cruisers to let officers take them home than to leave them for the next shift to use. Bryan seemed to forget, or ignore, that we have a professional manager and a police chief who might (who knows?) have a pretty good idea about such things themselves.
And Bryan wasn't the only Commissioner who excited himself and got off on such inquiries. You could see there was the thrill of a sense of authority, among people who should have done much more learning than attempted teaching. But some of them very clearly loved dearly to hear themselves talk.
But back to our problem. Commissioners were handicapped by a lack of vision. They had no sustaining sense of direction. Last week, in the general Commission meeting, Noah told us he believes government is "reactive." He got that right. This one is, anyway. With the exception of Roxy Ross and Bob Anderson, each of whom seemed really to be trying to shepherd something grand, the others simply reacted, to an expense or a number, here or there.
Barbara Watts seemed to take great issue with the fact that Roxy got reimbursed for half the registration fee for a League of Cities conference, a benefit all of the Commissioners could have, if they bothered to attend these conferences. But Barbara was much more glib about wanting to spend taxpayer money for a mural she is single-handedly arranging. She had to be bullied into agreeing to use donations instead to fund the mural, and even at that, she wanted it to be the Foundation's problem to go find the donors.
The Commission couldn't begin to articulate, much less consider, any system of priorities for the Village. Fiddling while Rome burned, Commissioners nickled and dimed the administration over the silliest of details, while failing utterly to provide the kind of overarching direction the administration really needed from us. They got concerned about how the manager's assistant's time is allocated, and how to track it in the budget, instead of deciding if the Village should survive as an independent municipality. The Commission had one leadership task to do, and it didn't do it.
Bob Anderson tried to put the matter in perspective, by suggesting that one way to save money is to reduce the Mayor's stipend. He thought it should be just a bit more than that of other Commissioners', instead of double, since the Mayor's task is now modest, compared to the old days before we used a manager. Bob's suggestion didn't get much traction. The big message was ignored.
One matter of intense interest, though no one wanted to say much about it, was the manager's announcement that she no longer thought it was a good idea to pursue annexation, and she recommended cancelling the planned workshop. Apparently, it was decided that the majority of the current Commission did not have the resolve or the vision even to think through the matter, and the opportunity was quickly slipping away.
The second budget workshop took place on Tuesday. This episode was not much better than Monday's, though there were some flashes of vision. Mostly, Commissioners pleased and amused themselves by asking what they imagined were clever and searching questions, only to learn the Village staff had already anticipated and dealt with the issues. This recurring fact did not, for some reason, lead Commissioners to stop asking irrelevant and redundant questions.
Bryan Cooper focused somewhat heavily on our use of legal time, and the considerable money it takes to engage it. He observed that the Village Attorney "ran over budget." In fact, of course, it was not the attorney, but the Commission, that ran over the budget, by running excessively long meetings and creating legal complications. Funny enough, Bryan happens to be the chief offender. He felt there should be "thoughtfulness regarding the use of attorney time," but he doesn't seem to realize who has been most thoughtless.
Two Commissioners during the Tuesday meeting did begin to introduce forward-thinking and visionary concepts, for which room should be made in the budget. Anderson and Ross agreed there should be a fund for the repair and maintenance of the log cabin (Jacobs disagreed), and Ross particularly appreciated the asset represented by the recreation center. She thought that should be accommodated. She also felt strongly about continuing improvements in Village landscaping. Both Commissioners talked about the poor condition of Village streets, and the need for better lighting.
Cooper pointed to the 2006 visioning study, and he complained that the only weakness was that it had never been linked to the budget. In other words, the ideas were there, but money had not been set aside to address them. Ross pointed out that although that was largely correct, in fact inroads had been made in eight of the areas noted. What Cooper failed to recall is that it was he, more than anyone, who resisted adequate funding for Village needs in general. So again, it is he who promotes the problem about which he then complains.
The workshops ended with a sense of what the Village can do, and what it can't do, if the millage is 9.5. Among the things it cannot do is attend to any of the long range projects that would represent real improvement and enhancement: the kinds of efforts that raise value. Commissioners are still able to decide to charge a millage of 9.9, if they have the vision and courage. Or, as the Manager said as her final statement to her Village, Commissioners should not be in the position of coming back to the Ordinance when it is presented in September, and arguing for a lower millage, because residents say they want low taxes. They should now have the commitment to "educate" residents as to why the highest allowable millage is best for the Village. Fat chance.
For example, at one point, Bryan Cooper mentioned the possibility that the Village could become "insolvent" if it had to contract for hurricane clean-up, and couldn't pay the bill, because there's no real reserve. But Bryan never said if he thought insolvency was a problem. He certainly didn't propose to do anything to prevent it. Resident AJ Gallo, who brought his fine-toothed comb to the budget meeting last year, and gave it a vigorous workout last night, too, suggested the Village should simply get itself absorbed by Miami Shores. Bryan never indicated whether he agreed, or he didn't. He couldn't even communicate whether he cared if there was a Village of Biscayne Park.
Commissioners clearly provided for themselves a pleasing and stimulating self-flattery in their searching questions of Village staff. Bryan in particular wanted to see real data that would allow him to determine if it was more taxing on police cruisers to let officers take them home than to leave them for the next shift to use. Bryan seemed to forget, or ignore, that we have a professional manager and a police chief who might (who knows?) have a pretty good idea about such things themselves.
And Bryan wasn't the only Commissioner who excited himself and got off on such inquiries. You could see there was the thrill of a sense of authority, among people who should have done much more learning than attempted teaching. But some of them very clearly loved dearly to hear themselves talk.
But back to our problem. Commissioners were handicapped by a lack of vision. They had no sustaining sense of direction. Last week, in the general Commission meeting, Noah told us he believes government is "reactive." He got that right. This one is, anyway. With the exception of Roxy Ross and Bob Anderson, each of whom seemed really to be trying to shepherd something grand, the others simply reacted, to an expense or a number, here or there.
Barbara Watts seemed to take great issue with the fact that Roxy got reimbursed for half the registration fee for a League of Cities conference, a benefit all of the Commissioners could have, if they bothered to attend these conferences. But Barbara was much more glib about wanting to spend taxpayer money for a mural she is single-handedly arranging. She had to be bullied into agreeing to use donations instead to fund the mural, and even at that, she wanted it to be the Foundation's problem to go find the donors.
The Commission couldn't begin to articulate, much less consider, any system of priorities for the Village. Fiddling while Rome burned, Commissioners nickled and dimed the administration over the silliest of details, while failing utterly to provide the kind of overarching direction the administration really needed from us. They got concerned about how the manager's assistant's time is allocated, and how to track it in the budget, instead of deciding if the Village should survive as an independent municipality. The Commission had one leadership task to do, and it didn't do it.
Bob Anderson tried to put the matter in perspective, by suggesting that one way to save money is to reduce the Mayor's stipend. He thought it should be just a bit more than that of other Commissioners', instead of double, since the Mayor's task is now modest, compared to the old days before we used a manager. Bob's suggestion didn't get much traction. The big message was ignored.
One matter of intense interest, though no one wanted to say much about it, was the manager's announcement that she no longer thought it was a good idea to pursue annexation, and she recommended cancelling the planned workshop. Apparently, it was decided that the majority of the current Commission did not have the resolve or the vision even to think through the matter, and the opportunity was quickly slipping away.
The second budget workshop took place on Tuesday. This episode was not much better than Monday's, though there were some flashes of vision. Mostly, Commissioners pleased and amused themselves by asking what they imagined were clever and searching questions, only to learn the Village staff had already anticipated and dealt with the issues. This recurring fact did not, for some reason, lead Commissioners to stop asking irrelevant and redundant questions.
Bryan Cooper focused somewhat heavily on our use of legal time, and the considerable money it takes to engage it. He observed that the Village Attorney "ran over budget." In fact, of course, it was not the attorney, but the Commission, that ran over the budget, by running excessively long meetings and creating legal complications. Funny enough, Bryan happens to be the chief offender. He felt there should be "thoughtfulness regarding the use of attorney time," but he doesn't seem to realize who has been most thoughtless.
Two Commissioners during the Tuesday meeting did begin to introduce forward-thinking and visionary concepts, for which room should be made in the budget. Anderson and Ross agreed there should be a fund for the repair and maintenance of the log cabin (Jacobs disagreed), and Ross particularly appreciated the asset represented by the recreation center. She thought that should be accommodated. She also felt strongly about continuing improvements in Village landscaping. Both Commissioners talked about the poor condition of Village streets, and the need for better lighting.
Cooper pointed to the 2006 visioning study, and he complained that the only weakness was that it had never been linked to the budget. In other words, the ideas were there, but money had not been set aside to address them. Ross pointed out that although that was largely correct, in fact inroads had been made in eight of the areas noted. What Cooper failed to recall is that it was he, more than anyone, who resisted adequate funding for Village needs in general. So again, it is he who promotes the problem about which he then complains.
The workshops ended with a sense of what the Village can do, and what it can't do, if the millage is 9.5. Among the things it cannot do is attend to any of the long range projects that would represent real improvement and enhancement: the kinds of efforts that raise value. Commissioners are still able to decide to charge a millage of 9.9, if they have the vision and courage. Or, as the Manager said as her final statement to her Village, Commissioners should not be in the position of coming back to the Ordinance when it is presented in September, and arguing for a lower millage, because residents say they want low taxes. They should now have the commitment to "educate" residents as to why the highest allowable millage is best for the Village. Fat chance.
Friday, August 9, 2013
What Could Be Better! (?)
I'm not alone in feeling very positively about Biscayne Park. My friends, some of whom have lived here for less time than I have, and some of whom have lived here much longer, feel the same way. We're happy to be here, and we're happy with each other.
No neighborhood is perfect, but we have a nice enough balance of the advantageous against the disadvantageous. We wish Arthur Griffing had made slightly more room for sidewalks. But we manage. Griffing, and his first customers, felt a church would be important, but a school would not. Maybe some of us would choose both, some would choose neither, and some would rather have the school than the church. And some may like it just the way it is.
We have above-ground power lines, which two Commissions ago refused to reconsider, and we don't have much in the way of illumination. From time to time, we talk about making a correction to the lack of street lighting, and maybe at some point, we will. It just takes...you know.
We have medians. Lots of them. That's an unusual and special feature of this neighborhood. We're also conveniently situated in the northeast part of the county. We don't have commercial entities, but it's very easy to access any that we want. We have our own police department. They're a very substantial commitment, and some have wondered if it's worth what it costs us. We have consistently decided it most certainly is. The Biscayne Park Police are a wonderful and sustaining asset to this neighborhood, and they happen these days to be award-winners, state-wide.
We have a park. With a baseball field. And basketball courts. And children's climbing toys. Kids and their parents from nearby communities come here. And we throw bashes at various times of the year. Our Halloween event is widely known and attended. We're fun. We're entertaining. We're welcoming. There has been consideration over the years of a tennis court, and a swimming pool. But we've determined it's not really what we want, so we're happy with what we have, and who we are.
So what, in fact, could be better? It's true we're happy to have our medians, but they're generally poorly developed, and many of them are spare and not well-kept. Most of them feature mismatched trees and no real "understory." Improving the medians takes resolve and...the same thing expanded lighting takes.
It doesn't look like it from the outside, but our log cabin could be better. Parts of the inside are deteriorating from years of lack of maintenance. The ceiling needs replacement, as does part of the flooring. Toilets need replacing, too. We re-roofed, but not with the proper material, and we could do better. Fortunately, the roof no longer leaks, as it did, and we appear to have found out how the rats were getting in. They now stay outside. If we leave the log cabin alone, it will still look nice, from the outside, but it will continue to deteriorate until it's either impossibly expensive to salvage, or it's a tear-down.
Our eastern border has one big problem that translates into a number of complications. The big problem is the train. It makes a lot of noise. Also, the track is more or less open to trespassers. There's no meaningful border between the track, and whoever is on the east side of it, and us. So noise comes into the Village, and so do mischief-makers. These two complications of the train, the noise and the intruders, lead to part of the Village being comparatively undesirable, which depresses rents and property values. That fact enables a less ambitious, devoted, and civically proud citizenry, which then encourages a vicious cycle. So what we need, to make the Village better, is a barrier between the track and the eastern border of the Village. This is a vastly bigger ($) project than increased lighting, the medians, or the log cabin, but it's a reasonable reaction to notable functional problems. It's not what you do this year. It's what you save for, and maybe do in sections.
We have a piece of sculptural art. It belongs to the Village, and it could be part of a public art program, if the Village and its residents want one. It was donated privately. The Village is now in a position to accept a second piece of outdoor public sculpture. At the same time, there is a move to paint an artistic mural on the street-facing wall of the handball court at the recreation center. So there is practically a public art movement in the Park. There is abundant sentiment and even scholarship that public art improves neighborhoods. If we were to devote, and "invest," ourselves in such a program, it is undetermined how it would be funded. Acquisitions could be "private," as were the first and second sculptures, and rely on dedicated residents to provide art and the money to buy it. (It is as yet unknown, and even undiscussed, how the mural will be funded.) Or the Village residents might wish to fund publicly, and universally. To give you an example of the difference, say a piece of art costs $5000. Paying for it will typically require investments of anywhere from about $100 to about $500 each from a small group of residents. You can imagine that willingness, and ability, to do that might not be unlimited. If the same purchase was funded by all the residents of the Village, it would cost each person about $1.50.
Finally, one thing that affects all of us, and that "could be better," is the condition of the Village in general, and the conditions of individual properties. Some of us may simply be relieved to live here, because BP isn't as expensive at Miami Shores, but it's a tonier address than North Miami. All well and good, but we can't forget that it's our Village, and we should have even more pride than relief to inhabit it. It takes a little trouble, and a little money, but we owe it to ourselves and each other to provide an appealing, or interesting, or even just tidy appearance to our individual properties.
So there are many features of Biscayne Park that couldn't really get any better. There are some that could. And except for something like installing sidewalks, they're all accessible. All they require is determination. And pride. And money.
No neighborhood is perfect, but we have a nice enough balance of the advantageous against the disadvantageous. We wish Arthur Griffing had made slightly more room for sidewalks. But we manage. Griffing, and his first customers, felt a church would be important, but a school would not. Maybe some of us would choose both, some would choose neither, and some would rather have the school than the church. And some may like it just the way it is.
We have above-ground power lines, which two Commissions ago refused to reconsider, and we don't have much in the way of illumination. From time to time, we talk about making a correction to the lack of street lighting, and maybe at some point, we will. It just takes...you know.
We have medians. Lots of them. That's an unusual and special feature of this neighborhood. We're also conveniently situated in the northeast part of the county. We don't have commercial entities, but it's very easy to access any that we want. We have our own police department. They're a very substantial commitment, and some have wondered if it's worth what it costs us. We have consistently decided it most certainly is. The Biscayne Park Police are a wonderful and sustaining asset to this neighborhood, and they happen these days to be award-winners, state-wide.
We have a park. With a baseball field. And basketball courts. And children's climbing toys. Kids and their parents from nearby communities come here. And we throw bashes at various times of the year. Our Halloween event is widely known and attended. We're fun. We're entertaining. We're welcoming. There has been consideration over the years of a tennis court, and a swimming pool. But we've determined it's not really what we want, so we're happy with what we have, and who we are.
So what, in fact, could be better? It's true we're happy to have our medians, but they're generally poorly developed, and many of them are spare and not well-kept. Most of them feature mismatched trees and no real "understory." Improving the medians takes resolve and...the same thing expanded lighting takes.
It doesn't look like it from the outside, but our log cabin could be better. Parts of the inside are deteriorating from years of lack of maintenance. The ceiling needs replacement, as does part of the flooring. Toilets need replacing, too. We re-roofed, but not with the proper material, and we could do better. Fortunately, the roof no longer leaks, as it did, and we appear to have found out how the rats were getting in. They now stay outside. If we leave the log cabin alone, it will still look nice, from the outside, but it will continue to deteriorate until it's either impossibly expensive to salvage, or it's a tear-down.
Our eastern border has one big problem that translates into a number of complications. The big problem is the train. It makes a lot of noise. Also, the track is more or less open to trespassers. There's no meaningful border between the track, and whoever is on the east side of it, and us. So noise comes into the Village, and so do mischief-makers. These two complications of the train, the noise and the intruders, lead to part of the Village being comparatively undesirable, which depresses rents and property values. That fact enables a less ambitious, devoted, and civically proud citizenry, which then encourages a vicious cycle. So what we need, to make the Village better, is a barrier between the track and the eastern border of the Village. This is a vastly bigger ($) project than increased lighting, the medians, or the log cabin, but it's a reasonable reaction to notable functional problems. It's not what you do this year. It's what you save for, and maybe do in sections.
We have a piece of sculptural art. It belongs to the Village, and it could be part of a public art program, if the Village and its residents want one. It was donated privately. The Village is now in a position to accept a second piece of outdoor public sculpture. At the same time, there is a move to paint an artistic mural on the street-facing wall of the handball court at the recreation center. So there is practically a public art movement in the Park. There is abundant sentiment and even scholarship that public art improves neighborhoods. If we were to devote, and "invest," ourselves in such a program, it is undetermined how it would be funded. Acquisitions could be "private," as were the first and second sculptures, and rely on dedicated residents to provide art and the money to buy it. (It is as yet unknown, and even undiscussed, how the mural will be funded.) Or the Village residents might wish to fund publicly, and universally. To give you an example of the difference, say a piece of art costs $5000. Paying for it will typically require investments of anywhere from about $100 to about $500 each from a small group of residents. You can imagine that willingness, and ability, to do that might not be unlimited. If the same purchase was funded by all the residents of the Village, it would cost each person about $1.50.
Finally, one thing that affects all of us, and that "could be better," is the condition of the Village in general, and the conditions of individual properties. Some of us may simply be relieved to live here, because BP isn't as expensive at Miami Shores, but it's a tonier address than North Miami. All well and good, but we can't forget that it's our Village, and we should have even more pride than relief to inhabit it. It takes a little trouble, and a little money, but we owe it to ourselves and each other to provide an appealing, or interesting, or even just tidy appearance to our individual properties.
So there are many features of Biscayne Park that couldn't really get any better. There are some that could. And except for something like installing sidewalks, they're all accessible. All they require is determination. And pride. And money.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
I Couldn't Think of a Title For This One. August Commission Meeting.
I considered "Rules? We Make Our Own!" Or "Arguments You Could Make in Your Sleep. Or If You Were Brain Dead." I didn't really love either title. I'll tell you what happened, and you can let me know what title would work.
The meeting started 15 minutes late. From where I sat, it appeared Noah didn't want to start until Barbara and Bryan got there. They were late. Maybe neither of them cared much about the Boy Scouts presentation, which never happened anyway, but you would think both would have had the courtesy and the decency to be there for the goodbye-to-Ana-Garcia presentation. Barbara did eventually show up. Bryan was late enough to miss the whole Ana send-off. Which frankly I'm guessing was more than OK with Ana. It was certainly more than OK with the rest of us. The less of Bryan, the better. As we learned once he got there.
During initial public comments, Barbara, mainly, and Noah got raked over the coals by most of us who spoke. Barbara's major gaffe was the hysterics into which she entered over the attempted elimination of some dead trees (more later). Noah took ongoing heat over his twisted synthesis of the July meetings. (See the "Contortionists..." post from last week.) He also gets remarkably creative regarding the rules we supposedly have, compliments of our Code and County and State statutes. Hence, imagined title #1.
An early topic tonight was the ad hoc resident group that will preview applications for the manager position. Bryan, who rarely joins the rational world, suggested that the Commission should consider not only the applicants best liked by the ad hoc resident group, but also the applicants who were declared unqualified according to the requirements set forth by the Commission. He never adequately explained why he wanted to consider unqualified applicants. Unless he was being purely and reflexly contrary, and wanted nothing but to argue and find a direction that was other than where everyone else was going. Come to think about it, Bryan had quite an evening. He broadly accused Board members of being "Mafia" and doing illegal things, like illegally removing trees, and at one point, he admitted that he thinks he knows more about the law than our attorney. He also revealed that he knows more about botany than an arborist, more about zoology than anyone, and he insisted upon reviewing a contract between the Village and our tree surgeons. Apparently, he is more astute than our attorney and the Village management. At least that's what he told us. At least about contracts. He got into shouting matches with a few of us, and he provoked the mild-mannered and soft-spoken Bob Anderson until Bob turned to him and yelled something that I probably shouldn't print. Gary Kuhl was itching for the fight Bryan promised, but Bryan went back into hiding before he had to stand up to the person he was taunting.
By and large, though, Noah, Bryan, and Barbara Watts regressed into their standard disagreeable postures, offering arguments that were meaningless, off topic, and gratuitous, intended only to fill a bit of space before "no" votes. Hence, imagined title #2.
I'll give you an example. All three of them ran on a platform that included dire complaints about the minutes. Minutes were inaccurate; they were incomplete; they were a betrayal of the archive they were supposed to comprise. As you may remember, once Jacobs/Cooper/Watts were elected, they passed all minutes-- those faulty, incomplete, and corrupted minutes-- without amendment, and instead insisted on "expanded minutes," to give a more complete sense of the proceedings. Well, it turned out these expanded minutes were a bit complicated, because they took a great deal of the clerk's time, and the audio was hard to hear. So they themselves were inaccurate. You remember inaccurate minutes; they were the huge problem, the big crime? Not to our new majority. All just fine. Tonight, for example, Roxy Ross pointed out that the minutes of the June 4th meeting contained a reference to something that was said to have occurred on June 23rd, 19 days later. No, the Jacobs/Cooper/Watts majority couldn't see what about that was so inaccurate that it ought to be changed. The word "hypocrisy" was mentioned. And if that wasn't clear enough, when Roxy suggested that since the clerk was now about to take on added responsibility, and be the interim manager as well as the clerk, we should lighten her load and go back to "action minutes," which take much less time, the majority said no. You see what I mean? Purely contrary and rigid. Not rational.
Here's another example. Barbara Watts had heard some Australian Pines were being cut down. This was last Friday. She hied it over to the site of the massacre, and she took it upon herself to cease the carnage. She, and Bryan, complained that living, or at least wonderful, trees were being killed, and she wanted the 13 foot stumps left in place, to be carved in some imagined artistic way. She just didn't want those trees cut, and the wood simply turned to mulch. But one of her suggestions was that it could be cut for yard decoration, or to be sliced into table tops. So it appears she didn't really object to taking the trees down after all. And she and Bryan got into a campaign of adoration for the majestic Australian Pine, which the County considers a "pest" that should be eliminated, and they both advocated for the trees to be left as homes for birds. Or something. Gary tried to tell them it doesn't work like that with Australian Pines, but they weren't listening. Think asleep. Or brain dead.
Barbara also couldn't understand, or maybe she just couldn't admit, that when work like this tree-removal is being done, and a Commissioner steps in and unilaterally interferes, it's a Charter violation. And I have to say, this went on so long, with Barbara's being so intransigent in the posture she adopted, that it really wasn't clear whether she didn't understand what she did wrong, or she was just reacting like a stubborn and embarrassed child.
Noah showed us all something tonight, though, after his standard rounds of partisan obstinacy. He's had this crusade lately, to change the system under which Ordinances are evolved. But after he argued with several people tonight, he finally came to understand that his proposal was irrelevant and added nothing to what we've already always done. So he actually backed off. And later, although he argued against accepting the sculpture offered, he voted to accept it. He found his way to the mature and adaptive version of a 3-2 vote. He was able to do the same thing, also after a phase of resistance, regarding allowing the Village to proceed with removing the 13 foot Australian Pine stumps. Well, good for him.
So what do you think about a title? Should I go with something like "A Silk Purse From a Sow's Ear?" It wasn't quite that satisfying, or reassuring, but there was a sense of mild surprise and relief from Noah. I'm taking suggestions. Leave 'em in the Comments.
The meeting started 15 minutes late. From where I sat, it appeared Noah didn't want to start until Barbara and Bryan got there. They were late. Maybe neither of them cared much about the Boy Scouts presentation, which never happened anyway, but you would think both would have had the courtesy and the decency to be there for the goodbye-to-Ana-Garcia presentation. Barbara did eventually show up. Bryan was late enough to miss the whole Ana send-off. Which frankly I'm guessing was more than OK with Ana. It was certainly more than OK with the rest of us. The less of Bryan, the better. As we learned once he got there.
During initial public comments, Barbara, mainly, and Noah got raked over the coals by most of us who spoke. Barbara's major gaffe was the hysterics into which she entered over the attempted elimination of some dead trees (more later). Noah took ongoing heat over his twisted synthesis of the July meetings. (See the "Contortionists..." post from last week.) He also gets remarkably creative regarding the rules we supposedly have, compliments of our Code and County and State statutes. Hence, imagined title #1.
An early topic tonight was the ad hoc resident group that will preview applications for the manager position. Bryan, who rarely joins the rational world, suggested that the Commission should consider not only the applicants best liked by the ad hoc resident group, but also the applicants who were declared unqualified according to the requirements set forth by the Commission. He never adequately explained why he wanted to consider unqualified applicants. Unless he was being purely and reflexly contrary, and wanted nothing but to argue and find a direction that was other than where everyone else was going. Come to think about it, Bryan had quite an evening. He broadly accused Board members of being "Mafia" and doing illegal things, like illegally removing trees, and at one point, he admitted that he thinks he knows more about the law than our attorney. He also revealed that he knows more about botany than an arborist, more about zoology than anyone, and he insisted upon reviewing a contract between the Village and our tree surgeons. Apparently, he is more astute than our attorney and the Village management. At least that's what he told us. At least about contracts. He got into shouting matches with a few of us, and he provoked the mild-mannered and soft-spoken Bob Anderson until Bob turned to him and yelled something that I probably shouldn't print. Gary Kuhl was itching for the fight Bryan promised, but Bryan went back into hiding before he had to stand up to the person he was taunting.
By and large, though, Noah, Bryan, and Barbara Watts regressed into their standard disagreeable postures, offering arguments that were meaningless, off topic, and gratuitous, intended only to fill a bit of space before "no" votes. Hence, imagined title #2.
I'll give you an example. All three of them ran on a platform that included dire complaints about the minutes. Minutes were inaccurate; they were incomplete; they were a betrayal of the archive they were supposed to comprise. As you may remember, once Jacobs/Cooper/Watts were elected, they passed all minutes-- those faulty, incomplete, and corrupted minutes-- without amendment, and instead insisted on "expanded minutes," to give a more complete sense of the proceedings. Well, it turned out these expanded minutes were a bit complicated, because they took a great deal of the clerk's time, and the audio was hard to hear. So they themselves were inaccurate. You remember inaccurate minutes; they were the huge problem, the big crime? Not to our new majority. All just fine. Tonight, for example, Roxy Ross pointed out that the minutes of the June 4th meeting contained a reference to something that was said to have occurred on June 23rd, 19 days later. No, the Jacobs/Cooper/Watts majority couldn't see what about that was so inaccurate that it ought to be changed. The word "hypocrisy" was mentioned. And if that wasn't clear enough, when Roxy suggested that since the clerk was now about to take on added responsibility, and be the interim manager as well as the clerk, we should lighten her load and go back to "action minutes," which take much less time, the majority said no. You see what I mean? Purely contrary and rigid. Not rational.
Here's another example. Barbara Watts had heard some Australian Pines were being cut down. This was last Friday. She hied it over to the site of the massacre, and she took it upon herself to cease the carnage. She, and Bryan, complained that living, or at least wonderful, trees were being killed, and she wanted the 13 foot stumps left in place, to be carved in some imagined artistic way. She just didn't want those trees cut, and the wood simply turned to mulch. But one of her suggestions was that it could be cut for yard decoration, or to be sliced into table tops. So it appears she didn't really object to taking the trees down after all. And she and Bryan got into a campaign of adoration for the majestic Australian Pine, which the County considers a "pest" that should be eliminated, and they both advocated for the trees to be left as homes for birds. Or something. Gary tried to tell them it doesn't work like that with Australian Pines, but they weren't listening. Think asleep. Or brain dead.
Barbara also couldn't understand, or maybe she just couldn't admit, that when work like this tree-removal is being done, and a Commissioner steps in and unilaterally interferes, it's a Charter violation. And I have to say, this went on so long, with Barbara's being so intransigent in the posture she adopted, that it really wasn't clear whether she didn't understand what she did wrong, or she was just reacting like a stubborn and embarrassed child.
Noah showed us all something tonight, though, after his standard rounds of partisan obstinacy. He's had this crusade lately, to change the system under which Ordinances are evolved. But after he argued with several people tonight, he finally came to understand that his proposal was irrelevant and added nothing to what we've already always done. So he actually backed off. And later, although he argued against accepting the sculpture offered, he voted to accept it. He found his way to the mature and adaptive version of a 3-2 vote. He was able to do the same thing, also after a phase of resistance, regarding allowing the Village to proceed with removing the 13 foot Australian Pine stumps. Well, good for him.
So what do you think about a title? Should I go with something like "A Silk Purse From a Sow's Ear?" It wasn't quite that satisfying, or reassuring, but there was a sense of mild surprise and relief from Noah. I'm taking suggestions. Leave 'em in the Comments.
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Now, Now, Children...
It's not difficult, and notoriously easy in politics, for people to find themselves at odds with each other. Often enough, and if tempering care is not taken, the result looks like a fight. Detached and abstracted settings, like the world or the country, enable polarizing interactions, making them caricatures, but they can also attenuate the consequences of discord. After all, who cares what you think of people who live in Europe, Asia, Africa, or Montana? You'll never have to see or interact with them.
The stakes are higher when we encounter disputes with our friends or neighbors. We have to live with each other, and in many cases, we have underlying relationships to preserve, despite the areas of disagreement. And it may be fair to say that in many respects, the issues aren't really any less exalted, either. The difference between communism and capitalism as a socioeconomic framework sounds much more consequential than the difference between whether or not boats and RVs are permitted in front yards. But at some level, it's all a matter of the balance of one person's "footprint" against the territory of another person.
The tension comes down to two things. One is to what extent anyone has to accommodate others, and the other is the style of the interaction to figure it out. We in Biscayne Park can sometimes make terrible messes in both regards.
As is not uncommon among people, we lapse into polarization regarding the issues. Some interactions come out looking like stark divergences between some people who only want whatever they want for themselves personally, and other people who want their preferences to control others' prerogatives. At its worst, the boats/RVs fight was portrayed as a battle. On one side were those who wanted any vehicles they wanted, displayed and stored however they wanted them, and the rest of the neighborhood be damned. On the other side were those who were portrayed as wanting a ruthless sense of order that, at the extreme, could have been characterized as the absence of boats and RVs in BP: if you want one, tough. I'm told some here articulated the latter position. And sadly, some members of the Commission were amused to egg on the combatants. The same extreme divergence has existed in the past regarding the permitted colors for dwellings, and whether or not people should be allowed to have metal roofs. Similar arguments could be made about whether dogs should be permitted outside, or whether so-called "holiday" decorations should be displayed. And it's all about the same thing: conflicting interests, territoriality, and primitive competitiveness. We'll leave most of that for another time, when there's lots of wine involved.
Once conflicting themes are reduced to their caricaturish essentials, it then becomes possible to argue them as if one position was completely disconnected from the other, as if there was no overlap, as if one fundamentally threatened the legitimacy of the other, as if there was no common ground. It's not hard to see whence the smirks, the catcalls, the ad hominem challenges, and the vital self-defense maneuvers come. If they sound nasty, they look even worse. "This is a free country, supposedly. I'm entitled to my life and the activities that are vitally important in it. I'll have my boat or RV if I want it, whether I use it or not. That's my business, not yours. If you're trying to take away my only pleasure in life, then you're trying to take away my life. I won't have it. I'll fight you. I'll sue you." "This is a quaint but struggling neighborhood. All we have, and the reason we live here, is our charm and our style. That boat or RV of yours is destroying the whole ambiance of the neighborhood. The whole place looks like a dump. You're stealing from me, by depressing the value of my property, my homestead. You can take yourself and your boat/RV, and go live in Hialeah."
There are two groups of people who are at a disadvantage in debates like this. One is the partisans themselves. They want what they want, and all they can see is the threat to their interests. The other is the neighbors whom they elect to represent them. These people are susceptible to the synergistic forces of the desire to represent and the wish that their constituents not be angry at them, unless the representatives are by nature reasonable, self-confident, and broad-thinking.
There is one group of people who have almost no disadvantages when it comes to our Codes, and balancing the interests of the individual against the interests of the neighborhood as a whole: the Boards, and particularly the Code Review Committee. This is a sober, business-like, knowledgeable group of people, many of whom have special knowledge and/or experience in relevant and related fields, and who set out deliberately to strike exactly the balance in question. They look for and at the big picture, and they are not beholden to anyone. Individual and conflicted interests among these neighbors are identified and confronted in the group. And these are people who generally maintain respect for each other, so meetings do not end with sniping and rumblings. This is the group of people who can save us from the baser and more self-serving manifestations of our impulses. They are the buffer, everybody's "out."
I wish we could discuss our issues without becoming polarized. It would be constructive if our conversations were about the issues, instead of each other, and if there was an assumption that the interests of everyone, individual residents and the neighborhood as a whole, should be entertained. Clearly, this would require compromise. But if we can't do that, then we should make dedicated use of our Boards to do it for us. And using independent advisory groups or people is nothing new. Governments do it, private enterprises do it, people with marriage and family problems do it.
The problem for us is that we now have a maladaptive dynamic in the Village. We have people who are more devoted to fighting with each other, or against vague enemies, than they are to maintaining and advancing the interests of the Village. If we can't stop it, then we have to circumvent it. Our Boards may be our salvation.
The stakes are higher when we encounter disputes with our friends or neighbors. We have to live with each other, and in many cases, we have underlying relationships to preserve, despite the areas of disagreement. And it may be fair to say that in many respects, the issues aren't really any less exalted, either. The difference between communism and capitalism as a socioeconomic framework sounds much more consequential than the difference between whether or not boats and RVs are permitted in front yards. But at some level, it's all a matter of the balance of one person's "footprint" against the territory of another person.
The tension comes down to two things. One is to what extent anyone has to accommodate others, and the other is the style of the interaction to figure it out. We in Biscayne Park can sometimes make terrible messes in both regards.
As is not uncommon among people, we lapse into polarization regarding the issues. Some interactions come out looking like stark divergences between some people who only want whatever they want for themselves personally, and other people who want their preferences to control others' prerogatives. At its worst, the boats/RVs fight was portrayed as a battle. On one side were those who wanted any vehicles they wanted, displayed and stored however they wanted them, and the rest of the neighborhood be damned. On the other side were those who were portrayed as wanting a ruthless sense of order that, at the extreme, could have been characterized as the absence of boats and RVs in BP: if you want one, tough. I'm told some here articulated the latter position. And sadly, some members of the Commission were amused to egg on the combatants. The same extreme divergence has existed in the past regarding the permitted colors for dwellings, and whether or not people should be allowed to have metal roofs. Similar arguments could be made about whether dogs should be permitted outside, or whether so-called "holiday" decorations should be displayed. And it's all about the same thing: conflicting interests, territoriality, and primitive competitiveness. We'll leave most of that for another time, when there's lots of wine involved.
Once conflicting themes are reduced to their caricaturish essentials, it then becomes possible to argue them as if one position was completely disconnected from the other, as if there was no overlap, as if one fundamentally threatened the legitimacy of the other, as if there was no common ground. It's not hard to see whence the smirks, the catcalls, the ad hominem challenges, and the vital self-defense maneuvers come. If they sound nasty, they look even worse. "This is a free country, supposedly. I'm entitled to my life and the activities that are vitally important in it. I'll have my boat or RV if I want it, whether I use it or not. That's my business, not yours. If you're trying to take away my only pleasure in life, then you're trying to take away my life. I won't have it. I'll fight you. I'll sue you." "This is a quaint but struggling neighborhood. All we have, and the reason we live here, is our charm and our style. That boat or RV of yours is destroying the whole ambiance of the neighborhood. The whole place looks like a dump. You're stealing from me, by depressing the value of my property, my homestead. You can take yourself and your boat/RV, and go live in Hialeah."
There are two groups of people who are at a disadvantage in debates like this. One is the partisans themselves. They want what they want, and all they can see is the threat to their interests. The other is the neighbors whom they elect to represent them. These people are susceptible to the synergistic forces of the desire to represent and the wish that their constituents not be angry at them, unless the representatives are by nature reasonable, self-confident, and broad-thinking.
There is one group of people who have almost no disadvantages when it comes to our Codes, and balancing the interests of the individual against the interests of the neighborhood as a whole: the Boards, and particularly the Code Review Committee. This is a sober, business-like, knowledgeable group of people, many of whom have special knowledge and/or experience in relevant and related fields, and who set out deliberately to strike exactly the balance in question. They look for and at the big picture, and they are not beholden to anyone. Individual and conflicted interests among these neighbors are identified and confronted in the group. And these are people who generally maintain respect for each other, so meetings do not end with sniping and rumblings. This is the group of people who can save us from the baser and more self-serving manifestations of our impulses. They are the buffer, everybody's "out."
I wish we could discuss our issues without becoming polarized. It would be constructive if our conversations were about the issues, instead of each other, and if there was an assumption that the interests of everyone, individual residents and the neighborhood as a whole, should be entertained. Clearly, this would require compromise. But if we can't do that, then we should make dedicated use of our Boards to do it for us. And using independent advisory groups or people is nothing new. Governments do it, private enterprises do it, people with marriage and family problems do it.
The problem for us is that we now have a maladaptive dynamic in the Village. We have people who are more devoted to fighting with each other, or against vague enemies, than they are to maintaining and advancing the interests of the Village. If we can't stop it, then we have to circumvent it. Our Boards may be our salvation.