Today was the Village's fitness expo, our first, and it featured a one-mile jog/walk. One of the joggers/walkers had a number 50, but it didn't look like more than 20-30 people to me. On the other hand, I didn't count the people, and some participants were toddlers and other small children in strollers. There were a few dogs, too, and I don't know if they were given numbers. I'm almost positive there were more Village residents jogging and walking than Village police officers guarding the streets.
The fact of the matter is, it was a very nice morning, several, or many, or 50 neighbors came out to get a bit of exercise and enjoy each others' company, and there were various "treats" at the end. There were food treats, water treats, and even more exercise treats. One woman, a Village resident, and her two teenage daughters ran a little zumba class, another woman ran another group exercise for kids and parents, and there were other people giving massages (also a BP resident) and fitness advice.
This event was not swarming, but we did get more than a minimal turnout. And people seemed to have had fun.
Issa Thornell and Ray Atesiano did a great job of organizing and managing the morning, and Issa says this is only the first of an "annual" event. I hope so. And I hope more people come out next time.
As for the "Fun Run," I did come in first, or was I perhaps somewhat further back in the pack? I wasn't paying careful attention.
PS: In talking with one of our neighbors this morning, I heard for the second time in about 3-4 days that a BP resident wishes we had a regular farmers' market. Actually, so do I. There's a small Saturday 10 AM to 2 PM market down Biscayne in the 60s and an all day Saturday market on Normandy Isle in Miami Beach. Any thoughts?
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Friday, September 27, 2013
The Missing Dollar
This is an old joke, and you probably know it. Three guys walk into a motel and want to take a room together. They ask the clerk what the room rate is. He tells them $30, and each man pays $10. When the motel proprietor returns, he asks if anything happened in his absence, and the clerk says he rented one of the rooms for $30. The proprietor scolds him, telling him the clerk knows very well the rate is only $25, and he tells the clerk to go return the extra $5. The clerk has to figure out how to divide five dollars among three people. So the clerk takes five $1 bills. He gives one to each guest, and keeps two for himself. So at this point, each guest had paid $10, but each has received a $1 refund, leaving each having paid $9. They therefore paid $27 among them. The clerk has $2 more in his pocket, making a total of $29. But if $30 were paid at the outset, where is the other dollar?
I think about this joke from time to time, including when I observe some of the workings, and some of the characters, of the Village. For example, the past Commission was frequently accused of being heartless, unconcerned, certainly unrepresentative, and domineering if a majority of it made a decision that was unsatisfying to, or even at the expense of, one Village resident. But the complainers and accusers, including some residents on the current Commission, declare themselves and are declared by a past Commissioner to be courageous and visionary when they frustrate the clear and expressed wishes of the entire neighborhood.
Similarly, some Commissioners, or some Commissions, are accused of failing to ask enough questions and to explore enough details about one issue or another. They are branded careless at best, and driven by nefarious influences at worst. But the accusers, again past and current Commissioners, try to portray themselves as goal-oriented and appreciative of the big picture when they ignore facts and fail utterly to take into account massive uncertainties, seeming to proceed like a juggernaut in pursuit of some entirely murky, incomprehensible, and unreliable aim.
Or some past and current Commissioners complain bitterly about a gift of public art to the Village and its residents, provided by private donations. They complain about the art itself and the process of its having been donated. But those same past and current Commissioners portray themselves as art promoters, and the past donors as selfish and abusive and against public art (I know; huh?), when the current group take public money the taxpayers do not want to spend to pay for art the same taxpayers may not want to have (the Commissioners have been very careful to conceal what art they want to buy with taxpayers' money).
So where is the missing dollar? It's just a joke, a little trick of logic. There is no missing dollar. And where is the advocacy by the majority of the current Commission and one past Commissioner, the championing of the residents, the prudence, the wisdom, the concern for public wishes and public money? It's a joke, a little semantic trick. There is no feeling or concern for the Village or its residents, no carefulness or wisdom. And unlike the joke about the missing dollar, you don't get a smile out of it at the end.
I think about this joke from time to time, including when I observe some of the workings, and some of the characters, of the Village. For example, the past Commission was frequently accused of being heartless, unconcerned, certainly unrepresentative, and domineering if a majority of it made a decision that was unsatisfying to, or even at the expense of, one Village resident. But the complainers and accusers, including some residents on the current Commission, declare themselves and are declared by a past Commissioner to be courageous and visionary when they frustrate the clear and expressed wishes of the entire neighborhood.
Similarly, some Commissioners, or some Commissions, are accused of failing to ask enough questions and to explore enough details about one issue or another. They are branded careless at best, and driven by nefarious influences at worst. But the accusers, again past and current Commissioners, try to portray themselves as goal-oriented and appreciative of the big picture when they ignore facts and fail utterly to take into account massive uncertainties, seeming to proceed like a juggernaut in pursuit of some entirely murky, incomprehensible, and unreliable aim.
Or some past and current Commissioners complain bitterly about a gift of public art to the Village and its residents, provided by private donations. They complain about the art itself and the process of its having been donated. But those same past and current Commissioners portray themselves as art promoters, and the past donors as selfish and abusive and against public art (I know; huh?), when the current group take public money the taxpayers do not want to spend to pay for art the same taxpayers may not want to have (the Commissioners have been very careful to conceal what art they want to buy with taxpayers' money).
So where is the missing dollar? It's just a joke, a little trick of logic. There is no missing dollar. And where is the advocacy by the majority of the current Commission and one past Commissioner, the championing of the residents, the prudence, the wisdom, the concern for public wishes and public money? It's a joke, a little semantic trick. There is no feeling or concern for the Village or its residents, no carefulness or wisdom. And unlike the joke about the missing dollar, you don't get a smile out of it at the end.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Who's Side Are They On? Sworn to What?
Under normal circumstances, the best of circumstances, the Village of Biscayne Park is a unique and tiny enclave, self-contained and self-supporting, nestled between North Miami and Miami Shores. It has a moat, the canal, on one side, and a battlement wall, the train track, along another. It's quiet, "100%" residential, with small streets, lots of STOP signs, slow-moving traffic, and a jumble of closely set homes. It's big feature is a park and recreation center in the center of "town." And for effect, and old-time charm, it has a real log cabin, still in use for Village administrative functions. Quaint, quaint, quaint. And a little bit insular. Our idea of combativeness is to threaten to ticket drivers if they "even think about speeding." Even that has a perverted quaint charm to it.
Well, circumstances stopped being normal some years ago. We never really managed ourselves well, and the stakes were getting higher. Because of our unique arrangement, we were self-dependent, and we had to be more careful, and use more judgement and expertise than frankly we had. So we decided to turn ourselves over to professionals for management. But even that wasn't enough, and we continued to eat through what fiscal reserve we had, and hadn't yet squandered. And we had longer range needs for which no provision at all had been made. With the economic crash of late 2007 and following, we couldn't replenish the reserve. We cut services, but we continued to take on water. It was clear we could not stay afloat indefinitely unless we did something a bit drastic.
One drastic idea was to over-tax ourselves. We live entirely on what we collect from ourselves, even taxing ourselves at the highest rate known in the County wasn't doing it, and we had to consider getting heroic. But our elected decision-makers were firm in refusing to raise our taxes to a level that would allow us to continue to support ourselves, so we got really drastic. We began to consider annexing neighboring revenue-rich territory. It's the equivalent of those companies that need more money than doing business can raise, so they sell stock. Now, they have investors: outsiders, strangers, people who can have a say in the company by having a vote. But without those investors, the company cannot reach its ambitions. For us, the ambition was to stay alive, as the unique and independent municipality we have been for 80 years.
It seems that most of our current elected decision-makers don't favor annexation, either, however. So we have a big problem. If we don't support ourselves independently, as we always did before, and we don't take on partners, investors, new neighbors, then we can't survive. It seems some people have a different kind of answer to this problem. Not only do they accept the death of the Village of Biscayne Park, they welcome it. They embrace it. And their reasoning has some distinctly inconsistent elements to it.
The specific proposal, articulated by two people, is that we end our existence as the Village of Biscayne Park and propose to become the northern quarter of Miami Shores Village. One of the two people who have articulated this idea is Ron Coyle, who was once himself an elected Commissioner in Biscayne Park, but was generally criticized for being quirky and detached and who failed in subsequent bids to get himself elected again. The other is Bryan Cooper, who is now an elected Commissioner and who generally finds himself at odds with the residents of the Park as well as, more often than anyone else, with his own Commission colleagues. If you detect a pattern here, so do I. Now the annexation-by-Miami-Shores idea has three complications. One is that there is no sense that the general residents of Biscayne Park have any interest in being adopted by Miami Shores or anyone else. The second is that there is no evidence that Miami Shores wants to adopt Biscayne Park or any other territory. And the third springs from a recurring complaint, both of Ron Coyle's and Bryan Cooper's. Both of them complain that the land use Codes of the Village of Biscayne Park are onerous and cruel, especially to the more marginal of Biscayne Park homeowners. Coyle recognizes that the Codes in Miami Shores are frankly stricter than those in Biscayne Park, but he claims to feel it's worth it to comply with even stricter Codes than the ones about which he complains, as long as he can say he lives in Miami Shores. Cooper doesn't seem to get the irony at all.
But here's the bigger problem. If some residents of Biscayne Park advocate for the demise of the Park, and if at least one of those advocates is an active Commissioner, aren't they violating an oath to uphold the Charter and interests of the Park? Or do they think they're Dade County's version of Mikhael Gorbachev, and someone will give them a Nobel Prize for dismantling the municipality they swore to uphold and preserve? I'm guessing not.
Well, circumstances stopped being normal some years ago. We never really managed ourselves well, and the stakes were getting higher. Because of our unique arrangement, we were self-dependent, and we had to be more careful, and use more judgement and expertise than frankly we had. So we decided to turn ourselves over to professionals for management. But even that wasn't enough, and we continued to eat through what fiscal reserve we had, and hadn't yet squandered. And we had longer range needs for which no provision at all had been made. With the economic crash of late 2007 and following, we couldn't replenish the reserve. We cut services, but we continued to take on water. It was clear we could not stay afloat indefinitely unless we did something a bit drastic.
One drastic idea was to over-tax ourselves. We live entirely on what we collect from ourselves, even taxing ourselves at the highest rate known in the County wasn't doing it, and we had to consider getting heroic. But our elected decision-makers were firm in refusing to raise our taxes to a level that would allow us to continue to support ourselves, so we got really drastic. We began to consider annexing neighboring revenue-rich territory. It's the equivalent of those companies that need more money than doing business can raise, so they sell stock. Now, they have investors: outsiders, strangers, people who can have a say in the company by having a vote. But without those investors, the company cannot reach its ambitions. For us, the ambition was to stay alive, as the unique and independent municipality we have been for 80 years.
It seems that most of our current elected decision-makers don't favor annexation, either, however. So we have a big problem. If we don't support ourselves independently, as we always did before, and we don't take on partners, investors, new neighbors, then we can't survive. It seems some people have a different kind of answer to this problem. Not only do they accept the death of the Village of Biscayne Park, they welcome it. They embrace it. And their reasoning has some distinctly inconsistent elements to it.
The specific proposal, articulated by two people, is that we end our existence as the Village of Biscayne Park and propose to become the northern quarter of Miami Shores Village. One of the two people who have articulated this idea is Ron Coyle, who was once himself an elected Commissioner in Biscayne Park, but was generally criticized for being quirky and detached and who failed in subsequent bids to get himself elected again. The other is Bryan Cooper, who is now an elected Commissioner and who generally finds himself at odds with the residents of the Park as well as, more often than anyone else, with his own Commission colleagues. If you detect a pattern here, so do I. Now the annexation-by-Miami-Shores idea has three complications. One is that there is no sense that the general residents of Biscayne Park have any interest in being adopted by Miami Shores or anyone else. The second is that there is no evidence that Miami Shores wants to adopt Biscayne Park or any other territory. And the third springs from a recurring complaint, both of Ron Coyle's and Bryan Cooper's. Both of them complain that the land use Codes of the Village of Biscayne Park are onerous and cruel, especially to the more marginal of Biscayne Park homeowners. Coyle recognizes that the Codes in Miami Shores are frankly stricter than those in Biscayne Park, but he claims to feel it's worth it to comply with even stricter Codes than the ones about which he complains, as long as he can say he lives in Miami Shores. Cooper doesn't seem to get the irony at all.
But here's the bigger problem. If some residents of Biscayne Park advocate for the demise of the Park, and if at least one of those advocates is an active Commissioner, aren't they violating an oath to uphold the Charter and interests of the Park? Or do they think they're Dade County's version of Mikhael Gorbachev, and someone will give them a Nobel Prize for dismantling the municipality they swore to uphold and preserve? I'm guessing not.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
As I Understand It. The Final Budget Hearing, September 24, 2013.
I had a late telephone hearing, which ran even later, and I missed all but the last 10 minutes or so of the final budget hearing. The bottom line is that the budget of 9.7 mills was passed, with supporters being Ross, Anderson, and Watts. Jacobs and Cooper were steadfast in opposing anything that high. For the record, Cooper, like his friend Steve Bernard, has never voted to approve any budget. The budget with the 8.9 mills tax from a couple of years ago? Nope. Apparently, any budget that is not precisely, to the last detail, what these two characters demand is unacceptable to them. Appreciation of the value of others' views? Acquiescence to a consensus or majority view? "Compromise?" No way, baby. It's their way or the highway. "Live Free or Die," Motherf****r. If you want to understand the value of positions like these, and the people who hold them, to a group like a municipal Commission, there isn't any value. They are useless dead weight.
According to what I heard, the meeting had actually been proceeding pretty well for about 35 minutes, until Cooper arrived. Yes, he was 35 minutes late. The sabotage reportedly then began, and the process got miserably bogged down. Remember the A-word? I heard it twice more last night, applied to Cooper, by people unconnected to each other. There's a pattern going on here.
There were continued references to the possibility of annexation, which has absolutely nothing to do with the '13-'14 budget, and continued droning about a preference for cutting costs instead of keeping a high tax. You might get the impression, if you didn't know anything about what was going on, that the idea of cutting costs was a new and valuable one, something no one considered, an approach we hadn't thought to try. Jacobs and Cooper never reveal that we have had four years of excellent management, during which abundant cost-cutting occurred, and we have very few costs left to try to cut. Certainly not enough to make any material difference to our operating budget. And not remotely enough to provide us with a meaningful reserve and set-asides for future needs. But these are people with no real understanding of the budget, no understanding of the Village, and nothing to offer. Their contribution is just a drone, just a noise, it's the static that makes you want to hang up and redial the person with whom you're trying to have a conversation.
One very minor curiosity, which was not substantive, may have been revealing about an unrelated matter. Bob Anderson bemoaned again the $2500 that no one wants the Village to spend for something Village residents might not even want to have: Watts' mural. Watts interjected that it may be possible the $2500 will never get used anyway. Really? Is there some mural-related complication Watts hasn't told us about? Presumably it's none of our business.
The other amusing, if infuriating, interchange was between Janey Anderson and Cooper. Janey reminded Cooper that he had run on a platform in which he offered to help with grant-writing, but then he refused to do any. Cooper, in his usual idiotic way, sputtered something about the Village's violation of federal laws, as if he didn't want to associate himself with such criminals. The problem is that he now claims to have become aware of such criminal mischief beginning nine years ago, a year after he moved to the Park, but he has apparently not turned us in to the feds. So if he knew we were a criminal operation, why did he run for Commission? Why did offer to help with grant-writing, if he knew he had no intention of getting that involved with our seedy operation? And why didn't he turn us in? Is he then a co-conspirator or accessory, and as guilty as the rest of the Village? It's all pathetic, obnoxious, sabotaging, and ultimately useless and empty. As is Cooper himself.
So I'm sorry my day job interfered, and I wasn't available to witness the whole foolish affair. The fact is, the Commissioners don't understand how to consider a budget for the Village anyway, so their approach was spurious. If they don't start with a clear appreciation and statement of what the Village needs, what are the important goals, and how much things cost, then they can't possibly assess a budget presented to them. It's just a bunch of numbers. And fussing over those numbers, as if it made any difference to anyone whether the ad valorem rate was 9.3, 9.5, 9.7, 9.75, 9.9, or 10, is nonsensical. Most of the Commissioners, and especially those most devoted to driving the rate down, don't know the money difference to the average Village resident anyway, so their argument is not about anything.
Well, we do have a new budget. It includes a tax of 9.7 mills. If you want to know the difference between those 9.7 mills and last year's 9.5 mills, it's about $30 for the year for the average homeowner. If your property tax last year was about $3500, this year it will be about $3530. The budget addresses basic day-to-day needs, assuming nothing unexpected happens, and it does not provide a meaningful reserve or any provision for our future needs. Let's have a nice year, and wish ourselves luck. We'll need it.
According to what I heard, the meeting had actually been proceeding pretty well for about 35 minutes, until Cooper arrived. Yes, he was 35 minutes late. The sabotage reportedly then began, and the process got miserably bogged down. Remember the A-word? I heard it twice more last night, applied to Cooper, by people unconnected to each other. There's a pattern going on here.
There were continued references to the possibility of annexation, which has absolutely nothing to do with the '13-'14 budget, and continued droning about a preference for cutting costs instead of keeping a high tax. You might get the impression, if you didn't know anything about what was going on, that the idea of cutting costs was a new and valuable one, something no one considered, an approach we hadn't thought to try. Jacobs and Cooper never reveal that we have had four years of excellent management, during which abundant cost-cutting occurred, and we have very few costs left to try to cut. Certainly not enough to make any material difference to our operating budget. And not remotely enough to provide us with a meaningful reserve and set-asides for future needs. But these are people with no real understanding of the budget, no understanding of the Village, and nothing to offer. Their contribution is just a drone, just a noise, it's the static that makes you want to hang up and redial the person with whom you're trying to have a conversation.
One very minor curiosity, which was not substantive, may have been revealing about an unrelated matter. Bob Anderson bemoaned again the $2500 that no one wants the Village to spend for something Village residents might not even want to have: Watts' mural. Watts interjected that it may be possible the $2500 will never get used anyway. Really? Is there some mural-related complication Watts hasn't told us about? Presumably it's none of our business.
The other amusing, if infuriating, interchange was between Janey Anderson and Cooper. Janey reminded Cooper that he had run on a platform in which he offered to help with grant-writing, but then he refused to do any. Cooper, in his usual idiotic way, sputtered something about the Village's violation of federal laws, as if he didn't want to associate himself with such criminals. The problem is that he now claims to have become aware of such criminal mischief beginning nine years ago, a year after he moved to the Park, but he has apparently not turned us in to the feds. So if he knew we were a criminal operation, why did he run for Commission? Why did offer to help with grant-writing, if he knew he had no intention of getting that involved with our seedy operation? And why didn't he turn us in? Is he then a co-conspirator or accessory, and as guilty as the rest of the Village? It's all pathetic, obnoxious, sabotaging, and ultimately useless and empty. As is Cooper himself.
So I'm sorry my day job interfered, and I wasn't available to witness the whole foolish affair. The fact is, the Commissioners don't understand how to consider a budget for the Village anyway, so their approach was spurious. If they don't start with a clear appreciation and statement of what the Village needs, what are the important goals, and how much things cost, then they can't possibly assess a budget presented to them. It's just a bunch of numbers. And fussing over those numbers, as if it made any difference to anyone whether the ad valorem rate was 9.3, 9.5, 9.7, 9.75, 9.9, or 10, is nonsensical. Most of the Commissioners, and especially those most devoted to driving the rate down, don't know the money difference to the average Village resident anyway, so their argument is not about anything.
Well, we do have a new budget. It includes a tax of 9.7 mills. If you want to know the difference between those 9.7 mills and last year's 9.5 mills, it's about $30 for the year for the average homeowner. If your property tax last year was about $3500, this year it will be about $3530. The budget addresses basic day-to-day needs, assuming nothing unexpected happens, and it does not provide a meaningful reserve or any provision for our future needs. Let's have a nice year, and wish ourselves luck. We'll need it.
Monday, September 23, 2013
"Once Upon a Time..." A Fairy Tale for Young and Impressionable Children, by Noah Jacobs
Blue is from Noah; Red is my humble suggestions.
Annexation Workshop Recap
I hope this finds everyone doing well. It was nice to see a good number of people were able to come to the annexation workshop. For those of you unable to attend I wanted to touch base and go over some of the key points so that everyone is aware of what information is currently out there.
The planners are currently telling us that we can apply for a very small but lucrative area to our northeast no, east. The area being targeted is between 119th and 121st, going from the railroad tracks to Biscayne Boulevard. There is also the possibility that the area could go as far south as 116th Street no, 118th Street. In that targeted area there are a few office buildings, a motel, and two apartment complexes. Also in that area you have some light industrial as well as some other small businesses.
In the best case scenario, we were presented with the idea that we would get about $380,000 in increased net income. That dollar value is determined after most, but not all costs are figured in. Understanding also that this process will take at least about a year maybe. Neither necessarily accurate nor relevant.
There is no guarantee that the County will allow us to 'cherry pick' this area. North Miami is also attempting to annex this area (as part of a much larger annexation). While the benefits of the annexation are not guaranteed, the costs of the process, between $15-20,000 are needed during the beginning steps no, for the whole process.
The reason for this annexation idea is because we have the highest millage in Miami Dade County no, it's because we have not been able to support ourselves in any other way, including having the highest millage in the County. Even with that millage rate we as a community are basically breaking even no, we are meeting certain basic and immediate needs. Considering our real responsibilities, including long range plans and having a reserve, we are failing to break even. Rather than try and examine some of our spending, and possibly
other options Commissioner Ross brought forward this idea as the cure all to the budget woes we all agree we are facing Ah, the "Commissioner Ross" fixation again. Noah doesn't realize to what extent we have examined our spending, and cut it substantially. We are at the bone now. No one suggested that annexation was a cure-all regarding budget woes.
When this was first brought up, the area was inclusive from 116th Street no, it was never clearly stated at the outset what the southern boundary would be. It is now known to be 118th Street, there were concerns about altering the image, nature and character of the Village. To avoid some of these concerns, the current idea is the smaller area should be annexed. Hopefully, the County Commission allows us to just take the smaller area.
Over and over, we were told by Commissioners Ross and some of her strongest supporters that we had no other choices. Neither "Commissioner Ross" nor anyone else ever said we had no other choices. I will agree that something needs to be done, but I'm not certain this is our only option. It is certainly not our only option. It is one of very few left to us, and the others have been rejected by the majority of the current Commission, including Noah. I even heard one of her strongest supporters advocate that we should not consider using this new revenue (best case scenario), to lower our own millage. I will always work to give you the best services we can provide, and try to keep your millage low at the same time. A time-honored and meaningless platitude.
After the residents spoke, the commissioners each got a few moments to speak, and possibly bring up ideas. While Commissioners Cooper and Watts, suggested that we continue to look at the budget and possibly cut from our expenditures been there, done that. We have cut to the bone, including economizing, firings, and consolidations. Our Village Clerk, who usually only has to do the jobs of two people, is now doing the jobs of three people. We have outsourced, and what remains of Public Works is at pains to function., Commissioners Anderson and Ross both seemed to say we had no other option but to continue pursuing annexation. The fixation now includes Anderson, too. No one ever said we had no other option, no matter how many times Noah sings this lullaby. It is what Noah and the rest of the majority have left us as the best option.
Finally, I brought forward an idea that had not been spoken of. It has been spoken of by Noah's friend Barbara Watts before Noah jumped on board, and it was spoken of in the past before Noah attempted to achieve his rudimentary awareness of Village dynamics. We have a shell lot next to the log cabin. We own that lot and can conceivably develop that lot. Why not work with a developer to develop that lot and put some commercial property on the ground floor of a 3 story building. Because the Village isn't zoned for commercial or three stories, because there aren't adequate provisions for parking, because the neighbors of this lot fought it years ago, because it will create a traffic problem at our most problematic intersection, and because we don't have commercial activity within the Village, which is one of the reasons Noah and his pals give for not wanting to annex the area across the tracks. If we put municipal, and police administration in that same building, then we can create an income stream to permanently benefit our community, and avoid the hazards and/or uncertainties of annexation. A charming and promising statement from someone who has no idea what income we need, no idea how our current income is spent, and no idea what income such an enterprise would generate.
Working to create a new building is something the whole community can benefit from, and take pride in. Unless the residents of Biscayne Park like the Park for the reasons they chose to live here in the first place.
All the best,
Noah
Saturday, September 21, 2013
The A-Word. Annexation Workshop, 9/21/13.
No, the other A-word. The one you thought I meant. I bring it up, because it has been spoken twice recently in genteel Village settings. Once was at the August Commission meeting, when Cooper so unnerved Bob Anderson that Bob turned to Cooper, told him to shut up, and called him an A**hole. This is not Bob. Today, while we were waiting for the annexation workshop to begin, one of my friends, who would very much not appreciate it if I named her, looked at Steve Bernard and told me he's an A**hole. This source of the A-word was much more unexpected than Bob's exasperated utterance. It seems very mild-mannered and typically unflappable people think Bryan Cooper and Steve Bernard are A**holes, and those observers lose their composure saying so. Well, who knows what to make of that? I suppose these commentators look less uncivilized if they're proven right.
Ah, yes, the annexation workshop. It was well-attended, as Village meetings go, although Bob Anderson did point out that only maybe 30-40 people, out of 3000, came. He considered that an unsatisfyingly modest representation of the Village. Perhaps so, but better than usual. Not only were there a number of people in attendance, but a range of people, with a range of opinions. That part was very satisfying. I hope, and suspect, Bob would agree. There didn't seem to be any mindless dupes, except at the Commission dais. And the reason I know what all these people had on their minds is that Noah Jacobs was very uncharacteristically generous about letting people speak. He allowed almost all the time of the workshop to be used up by the public. And he didn't cut anyone off. The only people who were limited in their opportunity to talk were the Commissioners, who opined at the end. I don't know what got into Noah, or what left him, but it was all very gratifying. And after Steve Bernard had his say, and others commented about what he said, Noah was even willing to shut Steve up, when Steve decided to speak over others' comments, and the other commenters asked Noah to muzzle him. Impressive, actually.
The content of the meeting itself wasn't all that interesting. There was some elaboration of facts, which was very good, although some of the facts were not of the "true" variety. But at least there was discussion. And residents got to state and explain their opinions, which were interesting, and thoughtful, and stimulating. I think it's fair to say that those Commissioners who are not brain dead were given something to think about. There was pretty good agreement that there were important and noteworthy pros and cons. The only possible problem is that some Commissioners apparently are brain dead, and seem unwilling to consider annexation. The purpose of this meeting, by the way, was not to agree to pursue annexation. It was to decide whether the Village should continue on the path of exploration. That exploration will cost us money.
But here's where we could see evidence of brain death. The same Commissioners who thought exploration was a waste of money, especially if it turns out fruitless, have recently been most free to unload Village money, generally on things the Village doesn't even want, or the Commissioners themselves don't want. And the bobbling heads were bobbling when Steve Bernard started in on his long list of unanswered, unanswerable, and irrelevant questions, much in his patented style. As I have always said of Steve, if you don't know anything about an issue, and you assume Steve tells the truth, the whole truth..., it all sounds so reasonable, and even compelling. It's a little hypnotic, actually. If you don't have a mind of your own, Steve's is a convenient one to borrow. And that's just the way he likes it.
One fun development occurred during Steve's screed (hard to pay attention, but the task is to try, without getting sucked into the hypnotic suggestion) when Steve, referring no doubt to Chuck Ross and me, who were just behind him in line to speak, said that Commissioners, and other prospective stooges, should not fall prey to hysteria about the Village being susceptible to bankruptcy, or getting decommissioned back to the County. Do you want to know who said the Village would become insolvent, and stop existing as an independent municipality in "10 years?" Bryan Cooper. Oops. Steve caught a bit of friendly fire there. And it's not as if Bryan was complaining, and certainly not proposing to do anything to prevent insolvency. He was just letting us know. Which raises the very interesting concept of an elected official who refuses to participate in any Village events, and apparently doesn't even care if there is a Village. In fact, it appears he's actively sabotaging the Village. What on earth this guy is doing on a dais, being paid by us? Beats the hell out of me. Neither Bryan nor Steve likes it when I refer to Bryan as a "terrorist." I'm open to suggestions of a better word. Don't suggest the A-word. It's taken.
The three musketeers seemed to agree about something, though. I think Bryan was on board with this. Noah loved it. Barbara Watts says that if any of us is willing for the Village to have a commercial aspect (that's what we're considering annexing), then we should erect a little strip mall, upscale, I think, next to Village Hall. There were lots of reasons this was an unspeakably dumb idea, but they weren't raised. After the meeting, however, I did approach Barbara to tell her that her reasoning was faulty. Saying that if any of us is receptive to a commercial area "in" Biscayne Park, it might as well exist next to Village Hall, is disrespectful of zoning. But Barbara didn't care about that. Her idea is that if we annexed a commercial area, then the whole Village would share commercial zoning. (Of course that's not true, but Barbara's argument only works if she assumes it is true.) But that doesn't suit her, and she pointed out she doesn't like fences. (I know, it's a non sequitur. If you drive by her house, you'll see what she does like. Personally, I wish she had a really high fence.) But I pointed out that this wasn't about what she likes. It's about what the residents of BP like and want. And what's best for the Village. She countered that she had run on a platform of not liking fences. I suggested that it is her job to represent everyone in BP, not just herself, and I asked her what she would do if everyone in BP, except her, wanted fences. She walked away.
So that was the workshop. We were left with more questions than answers, and some questions cannot be answered. For us to learn any more than we know, we have to "explore," meaning we have to spend money. It's a gamble, and the possible payoff is that we annex, we improve Village finances, and we both control and improve an area of the County that is marginal and sometimes the source of problems for us. It's not a bad gamble, actually. As both Roxy and Chuck Ross pointed out, it is in the County's interest for us to annex and to succeed. So we should assume they'll help us in any way they can.
Ah, yes, the annexation workshop. It was well-attended, as Village meetings go, although Bob Anderson did point out that only maybe 30-40 people, out of 3000, came. He considered that an unsatisfyingly modest representation of the Village. Perhaps so, but better than usual. Not only were there a number of people in attendance, but a range of people, with a range of opinions. That part was very satisfying. I hope, and suspect, Bob would agree. There didn't seem to be any mindless dupes, except at the Commission dais. And the reason I know what all these people had on their minds is that Noah Jacobs was very uncharacteristically generous about letting people speak. He allowed almost all the time of the workshop to be used up by the public. And he didn't cut anyone off. The only people who were limited in their opportunity to talk were the Commissioners, who opined at the end. I don't know what got into Noah, or what left him, but it was all very gratifying. And after Steve Bernard had his say, and others commented about what he said, Noah was even willing to shut Steve up, when Steve decided to speak over others' comments, and the other commenters asked Noah to muzzle him. Impressive, actually.
The content of the meeting itself wasn't all that interesting. There was some elaboration of facts, which was very good, although some of the facts were not of the "true" variety. But at least there was discussion. And residents got to state and explain their opinions, which were interesting, and thoughtful, and stimulating. I think it's fair to say that those Commissioners who are not brain dead were given something to think about. There was pretty good agreement that there were important and noteworthy pros and cons. The only possible problem is that some Commissioners apparently are brain dead, and seem unwilling to consider annexation. The purpose of this meeting, by the way, was not to agree to pursue annexation. It was to decide whether the Village should continue on the path of exploration. That exploration will cost us money.
But here's where we could see evidence of brain death. The same Commissioners who thought exploration was a waste of money, especially if it turns out fruitless, have recently been most free to unload Village money, generally on things the Village doesn't even want, or the Commissioners themselves don't want. And the bobbling heads were bobbling when Steve Bernard started in on his long list of unanswered, unanswerable, and irrelevant questions, much in his patented style. As I have always said of Steve, if you don't know anything about an issue, and you assume Steve tells the truth, the whole truth..., it all sounds so reasonable, and even compelling. It's a little hypnotic, actually. If you don't have a mind of your own, Steve's is a convenient one to borrow. And that's just the way he likes it.
One fun development occurred during Steve's screed (hard to pay attention, but the task is to try, without getting sucked into the hypnotic suggestion) when Steve, referring no doubt to Chuck Ross and me, who were just behind him in line to speak, said that Commissioners, and other prospective stooges, should not fall prey to hysteria about the Village being susceptible to bankruptcy, or getting decommissioned back to the County. Do you want to know who said the Village would become insolvent, and stop existing as an independent municipality in "10 years?" Bryan Cooper. Oops. Steve caught a bit of friendly fire there. And it's not as if Bryan was complaining, and certainly not proposing to do anything to prevent insolvency. He was just letting us know. Which raises the very interesting concept of an elected official who refuses to participate in any Village events, and apparently doesn't even care if there is a Village. In fact, it appears he's actively sabotaging the Village. What on earth this guy is doing on a dais, being paid by us? Beats the hell out of me. Neither Bryan nor Steve likes it when I refer to Bryan as a "terrorist." I'm open to suggestions of a better word. Don't suggest the A-word. It's taken.
The three musketeers seemed to agree about something, though. I think Bryan was on board with this. Noah loved it. Barbara Watts says that if any of us is willing for the Village to have a commercial aspect (that's what we're considering annexing), then we should erect a little strip mall, upscale, I think, next to Village Hall. There were lots of reasons this was an unspeakably dumb idea, but they weren't raised. After the meeting, however, I did approach Barbara to tell her that her reasoning was faulty. Saying that if any of us is receptive to a commercial area "in" Biscayne Park, it might as well exist next to Village Hall, is disrespectful of zoning. But Barbara didn't care about that. Her idea is that if we annexed a commercial area, then the whole Village would share commercial zoning. (Of course that's not true, but Barbara's argument only works if she assumes it is true.) But that doesn't suit her, and she pointed out she doesn't like fences. (I know, it's a non sequitur. If you drive by her house, you'll see what she does like. Personally, I wish she had a really high fence.) But I pointed out that this wasn't about what she likes. It's about what the residents of BP like and want. And what's best for the Village. She countered that she had run on a platform of not liking fences. I suggested that it is her job to represent everyone in BP, not just herself, and I asked her what she would do if everyone in BP, except her, wanted fences. She walked away.
So that was the workshop. We were left with more questions than answers, and some questions cannot be answered. For us to learn any more than we know, we have to "explore," meaning we have to spend money. It's a gamble, and the possible payoff is that we annex, we improve Village finances, and we both control and improve an area of the County that is marginal and sometimes the source of problems for us. It's not a bad gamble, actually. As both Roxy and Chuck Ross pointed out, it is in the County's interest for us to annex and to succeed. So we should assume they'll help us in any way they can.
For the Record. September, 2013, Commission Meeting.
I was out of town and missed the meeting, which was held on September 10. I asked around to see what happened. Some responses follow, from three people.
Jacobs played the tyrant, and Cooper is a hero of the save Greynolds Park movement. Watts was a wreck, completely lost all night except when she came in late, and she was armed with questions about the reasons for the ground shifting near the drainage project. Clearly, they were Steve Bernard questions, because it became apparent after some time that she didn't fully understand her own questions, never mind the engineer's answers.
Watts pulled her tree silliness, Cooper egged her on about it, and she is supposedly bringing it back in October. She was so damn arrogant: she actually said, in reference to the mural, that the Commission approved it 5-0, so she wanted to proceed with it no matter what residents said at the Commission meeting regarding using donation money only. The Commission picked nine candidates to take to the next level for consideration for Village Manager. Cooper wanted to take only the eight nominated by the residents committee. Watts, however, had others she wanted and who were not preselected by the residents committee.
Jacobs no longer wants to hear comments from residents who are not present at the meeting. He does not want them being read by the Clerk at Good and Welfare. Cooper wants to consider only the eight Manager candidates chosen by the residents committee. He and Jacobs agreed they did not want to hear about the review from the County managers group, which selected 11 candidates of those who applied. "It smelled like Steve [Bernard] wanted someone from the group of eight."
The only thing to add to those comments is that it does appear that Steve Bernard has chosen the Manager candidate he prefers, and it fully appears he is preparing his stooges, Jacobs, Cooper, and Watts, to confirm this candidate for him. Steve appears to have chosen Charlie Smith, who was at one time our Finance Director. From comments Steve made at the one meeting of the residents review committee, it appears Steve experienced Charlie as someone who would provide him with whatever information and angle Steve wants. Steve was completely unconcerned with a reply Maria Camara made to a question about Charlie, to the effect that Charlie was very unreliable when it came to leaving Village employment with inadequate notice, then getting himself temporarily rehired by the Village, then again leaving with inadequate notice. For the record, I happen personally to like Charlie. He's a very nice guy, personable, intelligent. I always got along very well with him, as I think we all did. He was in no way the strongest candidate among those who applied, however, and some others of us who like him are doubtful he would make a great manager. But the rest of us only want a high quality manager, not necessarily someone we feel we can manipulate. So our standards and requirements may be different from Steve Bernard's.
As for Jacobs' disdain for the opinions of Village residents, at least those not in attendance, I wonder if that will mean we will no longer hear him announce some new concern that was brought to his attention by some unnamed Village resident, who is not at the meeting.
Jacobs played the tyrant, and Cooper is a hero of the save Greynolds Park movement. Watts was a wreck, completely lost all night except when she came in late, and she was armed with questions about the reasons for the ground shifting near the drainage project. Clearly, they were Steve Bernard questions, because it became apparent after some time that she didn't fully understand her own questions, never mind the engineer's answers.
Watts pulled her tree silliness, Cooper egged her on about it, and she is supposedly bringing it back in October. She was so damn arrogant: she actually said, in reference to the mural, that the Commission approved it 5-0, so she wanted to proceed with it no matter what residents said at the Commission meeting regarding using donation money only. The Commission picked nine candidates to take to the next level for consideration for Village Manager. Cooper wanted to take only the eight nominated by the residents committee. Watts, however, had others she wanted and who were not preselected by the residents committee.
Jacobs no longer wants to hear comments from residents who are not present at the meeting. He does not want them being read by the Clerk at Good and Welfare. Cooper wants to consider only the eight Manager candidates chosen by the residents committee. He and Jacobs agreed they did not want to hear about the review from the County managers group, which selected 11 candidates of those who applied. "It smelled like Steve [Bernard] wanted someone from the group of eight."
The only thing to add to those comments is that it does appear that Steve Bernard has chosen the Manager candidate he prefers, and it fully appears he is preparing his stooges, Jacobs, Cooper, and Watts, to confirm this candidate for him. Steve appears to have chosen Charlie Smith, who was at one time our Finance Director. From comments Steve made at the one meeting of the residents review committee, it appears Steve experienced Charlie as someone who would provide him with whatever information and angle Steve wants. Steve was completely unconcerned with a reply Maria Camara made to a question about Charlie, to the effect that Charlie was very unreliable when it came to leaving Village employment with inadequate notice, then getting himself temporarily rehired by the Village, then again leaving with inadequate notice. For the record, I happen personally to like Charlie. He's a very nice guy, personable, intelligent. I always got along very well with him, as I think we all did. He was in no way the strongest candidate among those who applied, however, and some others of us who like him are doubtful he would make a great manager. But the rest of us only want a high quality manager, not necessarily someone we feel we can manipulate. So our standards and requirements may be different from Steve Bernard's.
As for Jacobs' disdain for the opinions of Village residents, at least those not in attendance, I wonder if that will mean we will no longer hear him announce some new concern that was brought to his attention by some unnamed Village resident, who is not at the meeting.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Mural, Mural on the Wall... A Saga in Two Parts: Part I
I know. It's supposed to be "Mirror, mirror on the wall." In the "Snow White" story, the witch was taken with herself, and she expected the mirror to tell her she was the "fairest of them all." She set herself up, and she wasn't happy about the response she got.
Barbara Watts commandeered the project for the mural on the street-facing wall of the handball courts at the recreation center. There had already been discussions about a mural for that wall, and those discussions have stretched back at least three years. I know this, because Chuck Ross and I had been talking about it. Suddenly, Barbara decided we should have a mural there, and she had ideas as to who should paint it. She suggested people she knew from FIU. I told her I already knew of some people who were interested, so Barbara, Ana Garcia, and I met together to figure out how to choose an artist. We devised the idea of advertising for artists, through a Request for Proposal (RFP), but Barbara thought maybe her friends could just apply independently. And soon. I told her that if we were to go the RFP route, everyone who was interested had to have an equal chance. So no, she could not simply slide her friends in ahead of everyone else.
It took an inordinate time to get the RFP composed and advertised, and it turned out the reason was that Barbara also had the idea of forming a committee of "experts" from among her outside (outside of BP) contacts, and she didn't want the RFP to go out until she had seated her group. These were people Barbara imagined knew a lot about public art, or murals, and who would "judge" the proposals and recommend which proposals would be best. Two of Barbara's "experts" were FIU colleagues, as was at least one of the proposed artists. What these alleged "experts" have to do with BP has still not been explained. Most of the parameters the "experts" were to consider related to the aesthetics of the images, which is to say the "experts" would tell us mainly which proposals looked best (to them). These "experts," by the way, do not live in BP. We do, and the mural will.
There was then to be input from the actual residents of BP. If you thought this group was entirely forgotten, or bypassed, fear not. We do apparently figure in, somewhere, somehow. Maybe. We are given an opportunity to vote on which mural proposals we like best. More shortly about this plan.
The deadline for submissions was July 22. No one was shown the proposed images until I complained and received them on August 15. That's over three weeks after they were all received, and after no further input from artists was to come in. If you want to know what the delay was all about, I have no idea. And the proposed images were sent to me only, and only because I complained. They were not posted on the village website.
In the meantime, while Barbara Watts was putting together her group of "experts" to judge the proposals no one was allowed to see, she was also trying to figure out how to get the mural paid for. Her ideas were that $2500 should come out of village coffers, and/or that the Foundation should raise the money. Another incoherent scheme of uncertain meaning involved having people "vote" for their favorite mural proposals, and pay for their votes. It was never clear what would happen to the money that accompanied the unsuccessful votes, and the Commission did not consider itself bound by the voting anyway. It is the Commission that will ultimately choose the "winning" mural.
One interesting development involved the judgements of the Watts committee and the public voting. They appear to be precisely at odds with each other. The "judges" liked two of the submissions best, and the voters relegated those two to the least desirable. The judges also particularly recommended an artist who never made a submission at all.
There is a potential wild card in this "system." (Commissioner) Barbara Watts had taken a very particular interest in this project, she seemed to tell me and Ana Garcia at the outset that she "knew someone" who would be a good muralist, and she has worked to shepherd the project to get it to go where she wants it, and deliver it to her friend. So the obvious question is which of the proposed muralists does she know? Which was she trying to maneuver into place to get the commission? You can be sure I asked her, three times, and you can be sure she has not responded.
A dilemma precipitated itself by the time of the September Commission meeting. The "experts" had opined, and the "public" had voted. At the September meeting, Commissioners had all the information they were going to get. And the decision was theirs alone. But there were some uncomfortable discrepancies. The "experts" recommended one thing, the "public" wanted something else, Watts had still not revealed how she is trying to get this to go, and the Commission (the Watts/Jacobs/Cooper majority) reaffirmed its commitment to paying for the mural with public Village money, despite the unanimous vigorously expressed wish of Village residents not to use public money. So what to do? Most groups of elected officials would find it hard to resist the swell of complaining constituents who did not want public money used. If elected officials wanted to use public money anyway (we're talking about a unique group of three elected officials who have a consistently demonstrated disregard for the public and what the public think and want), they could not possibly resist giving the public what Commissioners demanded it pay for. So the question is, what do elected officials do when they insist on using public money, despite the resistance of the public, but they also want to use it for something the public don't want? This appears to be the problem with which Watts is struggling. Her solution was to defer the matter for a month, presumably while she scrambles around colluding with her Commission majority partners and perhaps a special advisor. They, for their part, have made clear that as long as her plan is provocative and foolish, and frustrates and upsets as many people as possible, they will fully support it, especially if it wastes Village money.
Barbara Watts commandeered the project for the mural on the street-facing wall of the handball courts at the recreation center. There had already been discussions about a mural for that wall, and those discussions have stretched back at least three years. I know this, because Chuck Ross and I had been talking about it. Suddenly, Barbara decided we should have a mural there, and she had ideas as to who should paint it. She suggested people she knew from FIU. I told her I already knew of some people who were interested, so Barbara, Ana Garcia, and I met together to figure out how to choose an artist. We devised the idea of advertising for artists, through a Request for Proposal (RFP), but Barbara thought maybe her friends could just apply independently. And soon. I told her that if we were to go the RFP route, everyone who was interested had to have an equal chance. So no, she could not simply slide her friends in ahead of everyone else.
It took an inordinate time to get the RFP composed and advertised, and it turned out the reason was that Barbara also had the idea of forming a committee of "experts" from among her outside (outside of BP) contacts, and she didn't want the RFP to go out until she had seated her group. These were people Barbara imagined knew a lot about public art, or murals, and who would "judge" the proposals and recommend which proposals would be best. Two of Barbara's "experts" were FIU colleagues, as was at least one of the proposed artists. What these alleged "experts" have to do with BP has still not been explained. Most of the parameters the "experts" were to consider related to the aesthetics of the images, which is to say the "experts" would tell us mainly which proposals looked best (to them). These "experts," by the way, do not live in BP. We do, and the mural will.
There was then to be input from the actual residents of BP. If you thought this group was entirely forgotten, or bypassed, fear not. We do apparently figure in, somewhere, somehow. Maybe. We are given an opportunity to vote on which mural proposals we like best. More shortly about this plan.
The deadline for submissions was July 22. No one was shown the proposed images until I complained and received them on August 15. That's over three weeks after they were all received, and after no further input from artists was to come in. If you want to know what the delay was all about, I have no idea. And the proposed images were sent to me only, and only because I complained. They were not posted on the village website.
In the meantime, while Barbara Watts was putting together her group of "experts" to judge the proposals no one was allowed to see, she was also trying to figure out how to get the mural paid for. Her ideas were that $2500 should come out of village coffers, and/or that the Foundation should raise the money. Another incoherent scheme of uncertain meaning involved having people "vote" for their favorite mural proposals, and pay for their votes. It was never clear what would happen to the money that accompanied the unsuccessful votes, and the Commission did not consider itself bound by the voting anyway. It is the Commission that will ultimately choose the "winning" mural.
One interesting development involved the judgements of the Watts committee and the public voting. They appear to be precisely at odds with each other. The "judges" liked two of the submissions best, and the voters relegated those two to the least desirable. The judges also particularly recommended an artist who never made a submission at all.
There is a potential wild card in this "system." (Commissioner) Barbara Watts had taken a very particular interest in this project, she seemed to tell me and Ana Garcia at the outset that she "knew someone" who would be a good muralist, and she has worked to shepherd the project to get it to go where she wants it, and deliver it to her friend. So the obvious question is which of the proposed muralists does she know? Which was she trying to maneuver into place to get the commission? You can be sure I asked her, three times, and you can be sure she has not responded.
A dilemma precipitated itself by the time of the September Commission meeting. The "experts" had opined, and the "public" had voted. At the September meeting, Commissioners had all the information they were going to get. And the decision was theirs alone. But there were some uncomfortable discrepancies. The "experts" recommended one thing, the "public" wanted something else, Watts had still not revealed how she is trying to get this to go, and the Commission (the Watts/Jacobs/Cooper majority) reaffirmed its commitment to paying for the mural with public Village money, despite the unanimous vigorously expressed wish of Village residents not to use public money. So what to do? Most groups of elected officials would find it hard to resist the swell of complaining constituents who did not want public money used. If elected officials wanted to use public money anyway (we're talking about a unique group of three elected officials who have a consistently demonstrated disregard for the public and what the public think and want), they could not possibly resist giving the public what Commissioners demanded it pay for. So the question is, what do elected officials do when they insist on using public money, despite the resistance of the public, but they also want to use it for something the public don't want? This appears to be the problem with which Watts is struggling. Her solution was to defer the matter for a month, presumably while she scrambles around colluding with her Commission majority partners and perhaps a special advisor. They, for their part, have made clear that as long as her plan is provocative and foolish, and frustrates and upsets as many people as possible, they will fully support it, especially if it wastes Village money.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Ad Nauseum? You Bet. It's Enough to Make You Sick.
No one likes to pay taxes. In fact, in that secret, selfish, reflex way, no one really likes to pay for anything. And most people think the cost of whatever it is is too high. Sometimes, like at a car dealership, an art or antique gallery, a flea market, a bazaar, or some other places, you get to bargain to pay something closer to the price you imagine you'd like to pay. But there's always that sense that maybe you could have paid less. And if you could have, then you should have. It's not even about anything. It's just that sense of wanting something and not having to give much (of yourself) for it. If you reduced the dynamic to its most primitive, it would be as if you felt you were just owed whatever you want, for free. Infantile, yes, but common. Most of us outgrow it.
Here in Biscayne Park, we are known, among other things, for our property tax rate. It's comparatively high. Some of our neighbors complain about it, Erik Bojnansky and Jim Mullin of the Biscayne Times made fun of us for it a couple of months ago, and Stephanie Kienzle recently noted it in her CNMB blog.
Yes, we do have a high ad valorem tax rate here. But there's a reason for that. Two reasons, actually. One is that our only property tax comes from homeowners. There is no business, and no inflated business tax, in Biscayne Park. So all the ad valorem money we get comes from taxes on our homes. The other reason is that for whatever reasons, home prices in BP are comparatively modest. To get the ad valorem revenue it needs, the Village has to charge a higher millage on an inexpensive property than it would if the property had cost more. The number of dollars the Village needs is the same. It's the percentage of the assessed value that varies, depending on what that value is. If the Village needs $1000 from you, that $1000 is a lower percentage of a home that's worth $500K, which it might be in Miami Shores, than if the same exact home is worth $300K, which it might be here.
But we have expenses, we need the revenue to meet those expenses, and taxing ourselves is how we get the money. The process of figuring out how much we should tax ourselves is supposed to be a cooperative effort of the Village Commission and the Village Manager. The Commission is supposed to decide what's important, and the Manager is supposed to tell us what it will cost (in ad valorem taxes), and make it happen.
Unfortunately, at the present time we are having a failure of leadership on the Commission. Actually, we don't have any leadership. We have a majority (Jacobs, Cooper, and Watts) who either don't know what's important, or they don't want anything for the Village. They are unable to make a clear statement to the Village administration, since they have no clear statement to make. And they ignore input from their other two colleagues, Ross and Anderson, as well as from the general residents of the Park. They also ignore the advice of the Manager.
We are barely able to make ends meet by the end of the fiscal year. We run out of money on the last day. And that's only to pay the bills to keep us going. We have no reserve that builds from year to year, and we are unable to plan for future expenses. We have already talked ad nauseum about the log cabin that needs repairs, but which we can't afford to repair, vehicles that absolutely will break down and need service or replacement, the medians which we cannot afford to improve or even maintain adequately, possible lighting in the Village, a security system for the recreation center, a useable recording system for meetings, and a barrier between the train and the Village. Ad nauseum.
So in this setting, our fearless (because mindless) Commission majority fusses over completely meaningless numbers, representing the ad valorem tax rate. The most the Commission could have charged us was 10 mills. But it chose to start the conversation at 9.9 mills, shying away from the 10 mills for no articulated or rational reason. The difference between the two, the amount the majority considered saving the average BP homeowner, was about $13 for the year. Ultimately, however, our majority got even more adventurous than that, and it settled on a rate of 9.7 mills*, saving the average BP homeowner not only the first $13, but an additional $26, for a total of almost $40. That's what the Commission majority saved the average homeowner, in exchange for crippling the Village.
The real question is the (hypothetical: there isn't any actual) reasoning behind this reduction. Did the majority figure out what the expenses should be, and charge a tax to cover them? No. They made no effort to consider what proper expenses should be, and they did not provide for a reserve or any improvements anyway. Did they somehow calculate the ability to pay on the part of Village residents, and charge as much as they could to try to confront expenses? No. And if they thought they were somehow protecting homeowners' ability to pay taxes, which they made no effort to assess, what do they imagine will happen when taxes on homesteaded properties go up 3% a year anyway?
All the majority did was play with meaningless numbers, as children play with play money. The majority saved homeowners money they did not need to be saved, and they did it at the expense of the Village they are supposed to be protecting. And when these chickens come home to roost, taxes will have to be raised anyway, and/or we will change the character of the Village by annexing nearby territory. This is the price we will pay for having elected a Commission majority that has no vision, no sense, and no courage. And no dedication at all to the Village of Biscayne Park.
*The agreement to tax at 9.7 mills was a compromise. Ross and Anderson wanted to tax at 9.9 mills, Jacobs somehow chose 9.5 mills out of whatever air he breathes, and Cooper didn't bother to show up. Watts agreed to 9.7 mills, which is more than her delicate constitution can typically stand, and Ross and Anderson took for the Village what they could get. This still leaves us handicapped and unable to meet real and long range responsibilities. There are elections for Commission this December, so perhaps we will get new Commissioners with the vision, sense, courage, and awareness of their real role to allow us to preserve the Village and make it the valued and successful neighborhood it should be.
Here in Biscayne Park, we are known, among other things, for our property tax rate. It's comparatively high. Some of our neighbors complain about it, Erik Bojnansky and Jim Mullin of the Biscayne Times made fun of us for it a couple of months ago, and Stephanie Kienzle recently noted it in her CNMB blog.
Yes, we do have a high ad valorem tax rate here. But there's a reason for that. Two reasons, actually. One is that our only property tax comes from homeowners. There is no business, and no inflated business tax, in Biscayne Park. So all the ad valorem money we get comes from taxes on our homes. The other reason is that for whatever reasons, home prices in BP are comparatively modest. To get the ad valorem revenue it needs, the Village has to charge a higher millage on an inexpensive property than it would if the property had cost more. The number of dollars the Village needs is the same. It's the percentage of the assessed value that varies, depending on what that value is. If the Village needs $1000 from you, that $1000 is a lower percentage of a home that's worth $500K, which it might be in Miami Shores, than if the same exact home is worth $300K, which it might be here.
But we have expenses, we need the revenue to meet those expenses, and taxing ourselves is how we get the money. The process of figuring out how much we should tax ourselves is supposed to be a cooperative effort of the Village Commission and the Village Manager. The Commission is supposed to decide what's important, and the Manager is supposed to tell us what it will cost (in ad valorem taxes), and make it happen.
Unfortunately, at the present time we are having a failure of leadership on the Commission. Actually, we don't have any leadership. We have a majority (Jacobs, Cooper, and Watts) who either don't know what's important, or they don't want anything for the Village. They are unable to make a clear statement to the Village administration, since they have no clear statement to make. And they ignore input from their other two colleagues, Ross and Anderson, as well as from the general residents of the Park. They also ignore the advice of the Manager.
We are barely able to make ends meet by the end of the fiscal year. We run out of money on the last day. And that's only to pay the bills to keep us going. We have no reserve that builds from year to year, and we are unable to plan for future expenses. We have already talked ad nauseum about the log cabin that needs repairs, but which we can't afford to repair, vehicles that absolutely will break down and need service or replacement, the medians which we cannot afford to improve or even maintain adequately, possible lighting in the Village, a security system for the recreation center, a useable recording system for meetings, and a barrier between the train and the Village. Ad nauseum.
So in this setting, our fearless (because mindless) Commission majority fusses over completely meaningless numbers, representing the ad valorem tax rate. The most the Commission could have charged us was 10 mills. But it chose to start the conversation at 9.9 mills, shying away from the 10 mills for no articulated or rational reason. The difference between the two, the amount the majority considered saving the average BP homeowner, was about $13 for the year. Ultimately, however, our majority got even more adventurous than that, and it settled on a rate of 9.7 mills*, saving the average BP homeowner not only the first $13, but an additional $26, for a total of almost $40. That's what the Commission majority saved the average homeowner, in exchange for crippling the Village.
The real question is the (hypothetical: there isn't any actual) reasoning behind this reduction. Did the majority figure out what the expenses should be, and charge a tax to cover them? No. They made no effort to consider what proper expenses should be, and they did not provide for a reserve or any improvements anyway. Did they somehow calculate the ability to pay on the part of Village residents, and charge as much as they could to try to confront expenses? No. And if they thought they were somehow protecting homeowners' ability to pay taxes, which they made no effort to assess, what do they imagine will happen when taxes on homesteaded properties go up 3% a year anyway?
All the majority did was play with meaningless numbers, as children play with play money. The majority saved homeowners money they did not need to be saved, and they did it at the expense of the Village they are supposed to be protecting. And when these chickens come home to roost, taxes will have to be raised anyway, and/or we will change the character of the Village by annexing nearby territory. This is the price we will pay for having elected a Commission majority that has no vision, no sense, and no courage. And no dedication at all to the Village of Biscayne Park.
*The agreement to tax at 9.7 mills was a compromise. Ross and Anderson wanted to tax at 9.9 mills, Jacobs somehow chose 9.5 mills out of whatever air he breathes, and Cooper didn't bother to show up. Watts agreed to 9.7 mills, which is more than her delicate constitution can typically stand, and Ross and Anderson took for the Village what they could get. This still leaves us handicapped and unable to meet real and long range responsibilities. There are elections for Commission this December, so perhaps we will get new Commissioners with the vision, sense, courage, and awareness of their real role to allow us to preserve the Village and make it the valued and successful neighborhood it should be.
Monday, September 9, 2013
Call Off the Dogs
As Change.org likes to say, "There's a new petition taking off..., and we think you might be interested in signing it." Well, there is a new petition drive in Biscayne Park, and you might like to know about it.
As always, I am reporting what I know, what I've heard, and what I've been able to learn. And as always, if I've been misinformed, or if I have misunderstood or misinterpreted something, I want to know about it.
The petition about which I have heard was reportedly initiated by Steve Bernard, and it is to have signers ask the County, and its library, not to discontinue the mobile library van that serves Biscayne Park.
I called the library and spoke to the head of mobile services. I was told a couple of important things. One is that the Village does in fact enjoy a library van. The van comes to us on Saturdays. We, Biscayne Park, are a heavy user of mobile library services. We are its busiest, or one of its busiest, stops. So in that sense, the County library is very happy to serve us.
Yes, it's true, mobile services to the Village are going to stop. They will end on September 30. The reason is budget. The County has decided to end all mobile library services, because it cannot afford to continue to provide them. The library is losing us as much as we're losing it. They love us. Steve entitles his plea for signatories "BP Bookmobile - Gone?," as if we should take the decision personally. But then he adds "County Library System - Defunded?," to let us know he really knows better.
My impression was that what the County needs from us, and from all who occupy the County, is not demands to provide services. It needs money.
We rely on the library and its mobile service, and the library knows it. They appreciate our patronage. Instead of our asking them not to stop the service (they're stopping all mobile library services, not just to us), perhaps we should take a different approach. I can think of two. One is to accuse the County of mismanaging revenue, the theory being that we imagine there is probably plenty of money for the library, but it's being diverted. We can sue them. On condition that we're pretty sure they have plenty of money, but are not using it reasonably and legally.
The other approach we could take is to offer to pay for the library van service. Since there is a lot of usage coming from the Park, and it should be easy to see who the users are (Park residents, MSV residents, CNM residents, residents of unincorporated County), we can either exact a fee from users, or the Village can set aside money to pay for the van.
Steve points this out, too, in his appeal for signatories. He structures his advice as a recommendation to increase ad valorem taxes to pay for library services, including the "Bookmobile." And he's right. That's the way to make the argument. He also notes the County's decision to increase funding for animal shelters. This is a perfect example of his point: those who wanted to increase funding also asked the County to increase taxes to pay for it.
But it appears that simply barking, at the County, at the library, isn't likely to do much good. Shutting down mobile library services isn't someone's caprice or wrong estimate of the services' worth. It's a fiscal matter. It's the County doing what Steve and his followers usually recommend the Village do: cut services to balance the budget. If some of us think the Village can get by without an Assistant to the Manager, without nicely developed medians, without log cabin improvement and maintenance, without the buffering of a barrier along the train tracks, we should have no quarrel with the County's conclusion that it and we can get by without a Bookmobile.
As always, I am reporting what I know, what I've heard, and what I've been able to learn. And as always, if I've been misinformed, or if I have misunderstood or misinterpreted something, I want to know about it.
The petition about which I have heard was reportedly initiated by Steve Bernard, and it is to have signers ask the County, and its library, not to discontinue the mobile library van that serves Biscayne Park.
I called the library and spoke to the head of mobile services. I was told a couple of important things. One is that the Village does in fact enjoy a library van. The van comes to us on Saturdays. We, Biscayne Park, are a heavy user of mobile library services. We are its busiest, or one of its busiest, stops. So in that sense, the County library is very happy to serve us.
Yes, it's true, mobile services to the Village are going to stop. They will end on September 30. The reason is budget. The County has decided to end all mobile library services, because it cannot afford to continue to provide them. The library is losing us as much as we're losing it. They love us. Steve entitles his plea for signatories "BP Bookmobile - Gone?," as if we should take the decision personally. But then he adds "County Library System - Defunded?," to let us know he really knows better.
My impression was that what the County needs from us, and from all who occupy the County, is not demands to provide services. It needs money.
We rely on the library and its mobile service, and the library knows it. They appreciate our patronage. Instead of our asking them not to stop the service (they're stopping all mobile library services, not just to us), perhaps we should take a different approach. I can think of two. One is to accuse the County of mismanaging revenue, the theory being that we imagine there is probably plenty of money for the library, but it's being diverted. We can sue them. On condition that we're pretty sure they have plenty of money, but are not using it reasonably and legally.
The other approach we could take is to offer to pay for the library van service. Since there is a lot of usage coming from the Park, and it should be easy to see who the users are (Park residents, MSV residents, CNM residents, residents of unincorporated County), we can either exact a fee from users, or the Village can set aside money to pay for the van.
Steve points this out, too, in his appeal for signatories. He structures his advice as a recommendation to increase ad valorem taxes to pay for library services, including the "Bookmobile." And he's right. That's the way to make the argument. He also notes the County's decision to increase funding for animal shelters. This is a perfect example of his point: those who wanted to increase funding also asked the County to increase taxes to pay for it.
But it appears that simply barking, at the County, at the library, isn't likely to do much good. Shutting down mobile library services isn't someone's caprice or wrong estimate of the services' worth. It's a fiscal matter. It's the County doing what Steve and his followers usually recommend the Village do: cut services to balance the budget. If some of us think the Village can get by without an Assistant to the Manager, without nicely developed medians, without log cabin improvement and maintenance, without the buffering of a barrier along the train tracks, we should have no quarrel with the County's conclusion that it and we can get by without a Bookmobile.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
The Survivalist
This is an old post. I wrote it back in March, but I never published it, since I wasn't sure I could be bothered. But Bryan Cooper has been relentless in his continuing accusations of us in BP, and his quixotic campaigns elsewhere, and he has now attracted the attention of Stephanie Kienzle, who does a blog in NMB. The blog address is www.VotersOpinion.com, and the relevant post is called "OMG! There Really Is a Village Idiot!"
Bryan Cooper has been on the Biscayne Park Commission for almost four years. In that time, he has articulated a number of positions, about various things, and in so doing, he has given us a profile of what his approach, and his leanings, look like.
If there's one thing notable about Bryan, it's that he's hard to please, and he doesn't bestow his trust lightly. The fact is, he's almost never pleased, and he doesn't trust much of anyone or anything.
Bryan doesn't trust government. He seems to consider it inefficient, abusive, and a waster of money. He views it as antithetical to the interests of the public, sometimes even the enemy of the people. A favorite governmental villain for Bryan was the former Village Manager. And of course, Bryan generally doesn't trust his colleagues, with uncommon exception. He seems cordial, and occasionally partially deferential, to one, and he has remained sycophantically devoted to a prior colleague. There is one other colleague he is able to treat with something other than disdain, but since he finds himself telling her what to do and how to vote, it's not clear he trusts her, either. He doesn't trust the Village Clerk, Finance officers, attorneys, or Code enforcers. He thinks one Code enforcer was literally gunning for Village residents. Yes, literally. He thinks she carried a gun, which she used to intimidate residents. "Enforcer," indeed.
And the best defense being a good offense, Bryan himself has resorted to a sustained attack of threats and intimidation. Once, when he was doing battle with the Village Manager, and the Village as a whole, Bryan demanded an independent investigation of the Manager. When the conclusions of the investigator, whom Bryan had approved, were not what he expected and wanted, Bryan declared the investigator corrupt: he didn't trust his own agreed investigator, either. And to further his campaign against the Village Manager in that instance, Bryan communicated relentlessly with an administrative person at a County office, threatening to go over her head to jeopardize her job, or report her through a complaint to the media, if she didn't tell him what he wanted to hear.
Bryan also doesn't trust private enterprise. He seems to view it as mistreating and taking advantage of the public. Whether it's FPL or the organization (Bryan insisted on knowing whether this organization was "private") that is offering to help homeowners do "green" improvements, Bryan sees only self-serving mischief.
Bryan doesn't trust the residents of the Park. He seems to view some of us as conniving, and the rest of us as stupid. He has voted to hold elections when most of us don't vote, and he says most of us don't deserve to vote. "I don't want them voting," was the statement he made, although he turned out to be strategically hypocritical about this stance. And now he wants to introduce term limits, so even the few voters he approves of are limited in their opportunity to have the elected representatives they want.
And if someone says something with which Bryan disagrees, or which he doesn't want to hear, he declares that person a liar. Bryan has shown repeatedly over time that for him, there are no differences of opinion, and certainly no honest ones. He cannot be outvoted, or disagreed with, without concluding someone is being underhanded and dishonest.
It's a mystery what or whom Bryan trusts, apart from one past and one current colleague, and presumably himself. But when you watch Bryan in action (inaction?, Is that one word, or two?, as the joke goes), it's no mystery how paralyzing it is not to be able to trust anything or anyone. It leads precisely to the isolated, embittered, embattled stance, and the bunker mentality, Bryan has shown us.
Bryan Cooper has been on the Biscayne Park Commission for almost four years. In that time, he has articulated a number of positions, about various things, and in so doing, he has given us a profile of what his approach, and his leanings, look like.
If there's one thing notable about Bryan, it's that he's hard to please, and he doesn't bestow his trust lightly. The fact is, he's almost never pleased, and he doesn't trust much of anyone or anything.
Bryan doesn't trust government. He seems to consider it inefficient, abusive, and a waster of money. He views it as antithetical to the interests of the public, sometimes even the enemy of the people. A favorite governmental villain for Bryan was the former Village Manager. And of course, Bryan generally doesn't trust his colleagues, with uncommon exception. He seems cordial, and occasionally partially deferential, to one, and he has remained sycophantically devoted to a prior colleague. There is one other colleague he is able to treat with something other than disdain, but since he finds himself telling her what to do and how to vote, it's not clear he trusts her, either. He doesn't trust the Village Clerk, Finance officers, attorneys, or Code enforcers. He thinks one Code enforcer was literally gunning for Village residents. Yes, literally. He thinks she carried a gun, which she used to intimidate residents. "Enforcer," indeed.
And the best defense being a good offense, Bryan himself has resorted to a sustained attack of threats and intimidation. Once, when he was doing battle with the Village Manager, and the Village as a whole, Bryan demanded an independent investigation of the Manager. When the conclusions of the investigator, whom Bryan had approved, were not what he expected and wanted, Bryan declared the investigator corrupt: he didn't trust his own agreed investigator, either. And to further his campaign against the Village Manager in that instance, Bryan communicated relentlessly with an administrative person at a County office, threatening to go over her head to jeopardize her job, or report her through a complaint to the media, if she didn't tell him what he wanted to hear.
Bryan also doesn't trust private enterprise. He seems to view it as mistreating and taking advantage of the public. Whether it's FPL or the organization (Bryan insisted on knowing whether this organization was "private") that is offering to help homeowners do "green" improvements, Bryan sees only self-serving mischief.
Bryan doesn't trust the residents of the Park. He seems to view some of us as conniving, and the rest of us as stupid. He has voted to hold elections when most of us don't vote, and he says most of us don't deserve to vote. "I don't want them voting," was the statement he made, although he turned out to be strategically hypocritical about this stance. And now he wants to introduce term limits, so even the few voters he approves of are limited in their opportunity to have the elected representatives they want.
And if someone says something with which Bryan disagrees, or which he doesn't want to hear, he declares that person a liar. Bryan has shown repeatedly over time that for him, there are no differences of opinion, and certainly no honest ones. He cannot be outvoted, or disagreed with, without concluding someone is being underhanded and dishonest.
It's a mystery what or whom Bryan trusts, apart from one past and one current colleague, and presumably himself. But when you watch Bryan in action (inaction?, Is that one word, or two?, as the joke goes), it's no mystery how paralyzing it is not to be able to trust anything or anyone. It leads precisely to the isolated, embittered, embattled stance, and the bunker mentality, Bryan has shown us.
Monday, September 2, 2013
More Cheap (But Good) Eats. And In Our Own Back Yard.
You got busy, and it's too late to cook. Or you can't be bothered tonight. Or you just feel like going out, but you don't feel like spending money. Whatever. You need prepared food, you want it cheap, and for some reason, you think you're entitled to have it be tasty and satisfying.
Well, you've come to the right place. I already told you about Ricky Thai on NE 123rd Street at about 17th Avenue, and Vega's Burger, about 3/4 of a block east of there. Too far to go? Not to worry. Check these places out.
Harvey and Vicki Bilt go to King's Chef Chinese Restaurant all the time. Well not all the time, as in every day. Not more than twice a week, I'm told. And they don't eat there. They get take-out, which is the only thing that makes sense at King's Chef. King's Chef is in that scuzzy strip mall where Presidente Supermarket and Jimmy's are. Its actual address is 476 NE 125 Street, but you wouldn't easily find it from the address. It's sort of behind Jimmy's, lost in a mind-numbing line of tiny storefronts. Take NE 6 Avenue to 123 Street, go west to the end, take a right onto W Dixie, make the U turn at the end, and take a right into the parking lot. King's Chef is right there in front of you.
Harvey told me about King's Chef, so I'm telling you. Here's why you don't eat there. It's way too small. They have a few tiny tables, but you wouldn't be comfortable. And if you were there by yourself, you would have to enjoy the pictures on the wall, which are many cheap photographs of exotic cars, about which you couldn't care less, or you'd have to watch whatever nonsense was on the TV. So don't plan to eat there.
Here's why you take their food home. It's terrific. Better than you would have thought from some nondescript "Chinese restaurant" dive in a crummy strip mall. I haven't yet eaten anything I didn't very much like there. It's a lot of food, and it's cheap. And it's really good. Not only do they serve typical Chinese dishes, but they have specialties. Get them. They're particularly proud of their mixed wonton and egg drop soup. As well they should be. Also the duck. They promote it, Harvey and Vicki love it, and I agree. They have a whole list of "chef's special recommendations," and all the ones I've had are excellent. So is the rest of the menu. And entrees come with rice and salad. It's more than you will eat, unless you have a partner. What's listed as hot is close enough. I'm not a good judge, since I like food spicier than it typically is, but if I can detect heat, it's there. And I could detect it, barely.
The other great thing about King's Chef is the people who own and operate it. It's a family. Before you know it, they know you, and you know them. The second time I was there, which was months after the first time I was there, the girl behind the counter, the owners' daughter, who is in college for...oh, never mind, this is what happens when you meet these people, asked me if I was going to have what I had last time. Last time? That was months ago! She remembered, though. And as far as I remembered, she was right. You gotta love it. So do try King's Chef. I doubt they know me by name, though who knows, but say Harvey and Vicki sent you.
The other really good place is a pizza place. It goes by the captivating and inventive name of "My Pizzeria." It's at 653 NE 125 Street. Drive slow, or you'll miss it. It's in the west-bound lane, sort of across the street from Taco Bell. I don't know how I found out about My Pizzeria, except I got a flyer somewhere. Either it came in the mail, or someone put it on my door, or it was left under my windshield wiper in the parking lot where my office is. Why I kept it is beyond me. I usually fling stuff like this. But one day recently, I was having friends over, I decided I didn't feel like cooking, and I thought I'd give My Pizzeria a shot. Mario the Baker is gone, I dislike Domino's, the other Mario's Pizza is not that good, Steve's is OK, and the place people like down south of Miami Shores (starts with an A) is not my favorite.
Anyway, I got two different pizzas from My Pizzeria. Terrific. Every part of the pizza was exceptionally good. The crust is thinnish and has a perfect taste and texture. The sauce is flavorful, but not heavy. The toppings were well-proportioned and ample, but not overbearing. The cheese was tasty, well-balanced and not too imposing. And my friends really liked the pizzas, too. So I've been back, I love their food, the price is very good, and I'm more than satisfied. The owner has what sounds like a middle eastern accent, and for what it's worth, he loves the Mona Lisa. He has a large poster of it on the wall, and a smaller one on the counter. And other nice posters, too.
You'd more likely eat there than you would at King's Chef, only because there's more room, but it's really not a night out of the house. It's take-home. And excellent take-home.
Now there are three other places I have to try. Linda Dillon says to try Lemoni's and Lost and Found Cafe, both in or near the design district. I'll get to them soon. Also, David Tunnell now owns a place called Lagniappe on NE 2 Avenue, just south of 36 Street. I've heard about it not only from him, but also from Candido Sosa-Cruz and Barbara Watts. It's partly a food experience and partly music. Somehow, I have a feeling there's no lagniappe involved. Will let you know.
Well, you've come to the right place. I already told you about Ricky Thai on NE 123rd Street at about 17th Avenue, and Vega's Burger, about 3/4 of a block east of there. Too far to go? Not to worry. Check these places out.
Harvey and Vicki Bilt go to King's Chef Chinese Restaurant all the time. Well not all the time, as in every day. Not more than twice a week, I'm told. And they don't eat there. They get take-out, which is the only thing that makes sense at King's Chef. King's Chef is in that scuzzy strip mall where Presidente Supermarket and Jimmy's are. Its actual address is 476 NE 125 Street, but you wouldn't easily find it from the address. It's sort of behind Jimmy's, lost in a mind-numbing line of tiny storefronts. Take NE 6 Avenue to 123 Street, go west to the end, take a right onto W Dixie, make the U turn at the end, and take a right into the parking lot. King's Chef is right there in front of you.
Harvey told me about King's Chef, so I'm telling you. Here's why you don't eat there. It's way too small. They have a few tiny tables, but you wouldn't be comfortable. And if you were there by yourself, you would have to enjoy the pictures on the wall, which are many cheap photographs of exotic cars, about which you couldn't care less, or you'd have to watch whatever nonsense was on the TV. So don't plan to eat there.
Here's why you take their food home. It's terrific. Better than you would have thought from some nondescript "Chinese restaurant" dive in a crummy strip mall. I haven't yet eaten anything I didn't very much like there. It's a lot of food, and it's cheap. And it's really good. Not only do they serve typical Chinese dishes, but they have specialties. Get them. They're particularly proud of their mixed wonton and egg drop soup. As well they should be. Also the duck. They promote it, Harvey and Vicki love it, and I agree. They have a whole list of "chef's special recommendations," and all the ones I've had are excellent. So is the rest of the menu. And entrees come with rice and salad. It's more than you will eat, unless you have a partner. What's listed as hot is close enough. I'm not a good judge, since I like food spicier than it typically is, but if I can detect heat, it's there. And I could detect it, barely.
The other great thing about King's Chef is the people who own and operate it. It's a family. Before you know it, they know you, and you know them. The second time I was there, which was months after the first time I was there, the girl behind the counter, the owners' daughter, who is in college for...oh, never mind, this is what happens when you meet these people, asked me if I was going to have what I had last time. Last time? That was months ago! She remembered, though. And as far as I remembered, she was right. You gotta love it. So do try King's Chef. I doubt they know me by name, though who knows, but say Harvey and Vicki sent you.
The other really good place is a pizza place. It goes by the captivating and inventive name of "My Pizzeria." It's at 653 NE 125 Street. Drive slow, or you'll miss it. It's in the west-bound lane, sort of across the street from Taco Bell. I don't know how I found out about My Pizzeria, except I got a flyer somewhere. Either it came in the mail, or someone put it on my door, or it was left under my windshield wiper in the parking lot where my office is. Why I kept it is beyond me. I usually fling stuff like this. But one day recently, I was having friends over, I decided I didn't feel like cooking, and I thought I'd give My Pizzeria a shot. Mario the Baker is gone, I dislike Domino's, the other Mario's Pizza is not that good, Steve's is OK, and the place people like down south of Miami Shores (starts with an A) is not my favorite.
Anyway, I got two different pizzas from My Pizzeria. Terrific. Every part of the pizza was exceptionally good. The crust is thinnish and has a perfect taste and texture. The sauce is flavorful, but not heavy. The toppings were well-proportioned and ample, but not overbearing. The cheese was tasty, well-balanced and not too imposing. And my friends really liked the pizzas, too. So I've been back, I love their food, the price is very good, and I'm more than satisfied. The owner has what sounds like a middle eastern accent, and for what it's worth, he loves the Mona Lisa. He has a large poster of it on the wall, and a smaller one on the counter. And other nice posters, too.
You'd more likely eat there than you would at King's Chef, only because there's more room, but it's really not a night out of the house. It's take-home. And excellent take-home.
Now there are three other places I have to try. Linda Dillon says to try Lemoni's and Lost and Found Cafe, both in or near the design district. I'll get to them soon. Also, David Tunnell now owns a place called Lagniappe on NE 2 Avenue, just south of 36 Street. I've heard about it not only from him, but also from Candido Sosa-Cruz and Barbara Watts. It's partly a food experience and partly music. Somehow, I have a feeling there's no lagniappe involved. Will let you know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)