Another perfectly enjoyable evening. We had a nice throng of kids and parents: some BPers, and many others. Everyone had fun, and everyone got candy. One of my friends who lives just at the perimeter of the park spent "a couple hundred dollars" on candy.
The initial focus of the event was the recreation center, which closed at 7:00. It had been the home of our haunted house the Saturday before Halloween. After 7, everyone hit the streets, on the prowl for more sweets.
Houses were outfitted, too, and the most extravagant display was presented by our annual Christmas decoration winners, the Duvas. They do know how to do up displays. About as extravagant, and featuring their renowned spooky music, was the home of Amy Alonso and Marianna Ferro. Everyone flocks to their house.
Our police gave out candy, too. Patrol cars were stationed at intersections at and near the park, and officers and their civilian volunteer helpers had plenty of candy to distribute. You might be interested to know how they got candy this year. Chuck Ross, our CrimeWatch Chairman, went to K-Mart with Ray Atesiano, Nick Wollschlager, and Larry Churchman, expecting to stock up for tonight. They chose some bags of Halloween candy and some advance supplies of Christmas candy. When the store manager heard they were there, Ray, Nick and Larry in their uniforms, he asked them to put the Christmas candy back, and he loaded their cart to overflowing with Halloween candy. He made it a gift to the Village. Need something? Shop at K-Mart. They're good people and good neighbors.
I heard it said often tonight what a "treat" Halloween is in Biscayne Park. We make a nice reputation for ourselves with the open and inviting atmosphere we create. People go out of their ways to come here. One of my friends, the same one who spent hundreds of dollars on candy, noted in particular how polite all the kids were. It really is a treat, for everyone, and we're fortunate to have the circumstances and resolve to host this event.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Yes, I Changed My Understanding. And Your Point Is?
When the topic of annexation initially arose, I was against it. Part of my resistance was probably fear of change, or maybe the persistence of sentimentality. It seemed to me that annexing territory across the train tracks was not a good idea. I had two objections.
One was that annexing territory that had lots of commerce in it meant that Biscayne Park would no longer be "100% residential." Of course I realize we are already not 100% residential, but the non-residential component, the church, is homey-looking and has long been a fixture of the Village. On the other hand, I didn't like that component, either, and I thought we should buy the property. After all, we had demonstrated a lack of interest in the church, in that we don't much patronize it, and it represents a weekly traffic problem, soon to become a daily traffic problem. I thought we could use the building for our municipal needs, or sell it and the rest of the lots for people to build homes. I was looking for purity about our nickname ("100% residential"), so I certainly didn't want to annex some other territory that was largely commercial and industrial.
My other objection was that most of the people who live in the proposed territory are renters, and renters do not necessarily want the same things property owners want. I was afraid that if those renters became BP residents and voters, they would undermine or legislate away the style of the "real" BP by voting things like less Code stringency. They're only renting. What do they care about style and property value?
But I have changed my understanding of the issue, and I have changed my mind about whether we should try to annex. The main factor that caused me to have to look, and think, again was the realization that we are not going to be able to survive if we don't do something to increase revenues somewhat substantially. Maybe drastically. Having talked to a number of people about this, and many of these people are in the business to know a lot about it, I have agreed that we cannot sustain ourselves the way we are. I don't just mean pay our bills at the end of each month. I mean thrive and be a successful, respectable, and self-respecting municipality. For now, and if we have no "rainy day" problems, we can pay our bills. And paying our daily bills is all we can do under present conditions. We cannot amass a reserve, and we cannot do other necessary projects. All other things being equal, though, as costs rise faster than revenues, we will eventually not even be able to pay our ordinary bills. The "game" will be "over."
So again, talking to other people who are in a position to know, I have considered how we can get the money to sustain ourselves. We can raise our taxes, and we can even raise them a lot. We can vote to sustain ourselves by voting in taxes of more than 10 mills, but such a decision only lasts for two years at a time. We would then have to agree to extend the increase, and we would always be vulnerable to residents deciding they no longer care enough to pay unusually high taxes. Sustaining our Village and our lifestyle in it simply by having a very high millage is a risky and tenuous exercise.
Listening to people who know the dynamics of municipal management, I had to reconsider what I objected to about annexation. First, there was the sentimental idea of the tiny, "100% residential" burg. Once you come to accept that if we don't do something somewhat drastic, there won't be any more tiny, "100% residential" burg, you begin to look differently at the options. It seemed roundly agreed by people in the know that annexation is a very good and healthy idea. It "diversifies" the revenue stream. So what if there is a commercial component to the Village, and it's in a place where it is invisible to the triangle and has no functional effect on it? Don't almost all municipalities have areas that are zoned for residential use and other areas that are zoned for commercial use? Does the fact that the commercial zone exists in the municipality detract from the residential zone? Wouldn't the commercial zone have even less impact on the feel of the residential zone if there was a dramatic physical barrier between the two? With that kind of understanding, I lost some of the sentiment about the "100% residential" identity. Having a residential component where you can't see it mitigates the sense of contamination of the neighborhood.
As for the renter/voters, it turns out there aren't many of them over there. Nowhere near as many as there are here. Not only is the population a lot smaller than the population of what we know as BP, but sadly, many of the renters are not voters. They can't change the Village by Ordinance. There aren't enough of them.
With what has come to look like vigorous resistance to raising taxes heroically, and the fact that such an increase is tenuous anyway, with reassurance that annexation will not change the triangle, I really have no further objection. It's a good idea. I changed my mind. Am I to be accused of being open-minded and flexible? So be it. Guilty as charged.
Now there is one other argument against annexation. It's an argument made on behalf of those to be annexed. The argument was articulated by Barbara Watts and by my across-the-street neighbor, who owns warehouse property near the airport. Barbara is concerned that taxes in the annexed territory will increase, and that it will make things difficult for the taxpayers there. My across-the-street neighbor says that with the near annexation of his property by Doral, his property tax would have increased from almost $11K per year to over $26K per year. And further, he adds, he would have gotten nothing of value for the extra money. His feeling was that Doral's promise of better police service did him little good, since his property is only warehouses. He felt the same way about the offer of better ambulance service. Better police service is one of the main things we have to offer the territory we could consider annexing, too. If it seems like an insubstantial offer, as it did to my neighbor, look at it the other way around. Suppose someone told us we could pay less taxes, and in exchange, we would get County police instead of our crack BP police. No deal, right? We'd rather pay more, and have amazing police service. So why wouldn't we imagine that BP police instead of County police is a very big advantage to the annexable territory? It is to us.
I've "done a 180" about annexation. I don't feel it would harm us, I don't think it would be a mistake, and I think it's a good way to reinvent ourselves for long term existence. And I would very much sooner include commerce where we can't see it than to impose commerce in our little "100% residential" triangle. We need gas stations (well, you do), and grocery stores, and Starbucks, and doctors' and lawyers' offices, and all kinds of places to get what we need. We just don't need them here, in the triangle.
One was that annexing territory that had lots of commerce in it meant that Biscayne Park would no longer be "100% residential." Of course I realize we are already not 100% residential, but the non-residential component, the church, is homey-looking and has long been a fixture of the Village. On the other hand, I didn't like that component, either, and I thought we should buy the property. After all, we had demonstrated a lack of interest in the church, in that we don't much patronize it, and it represents a weekly traffic problem, soon to become a daily traffic problem. I thought we could use the building for our municipal needs, or sell it and the rest of the lots for people to build homes. I was looking for purity about our nickname ("100% residential"), so I certainly didn't want to annex some other territory that was largely commercial and industrial.
My other objection was that most of the people who live in the proposed territory are renters, and renters do not necessarily want the same things property owners want. I was afraid that if those renters became BP residents and voters, they would undermine or legislate away the style of the "real" BP by voting things like less Code stringency. They're only renting. What do they care about style and property value?
But I have changed my understanding of the issue, and I have changed my mind about whether we should try to annex. The main factor that caused me to have to look, and think, again was the realization that we are not going to be able to survive if we don't do something to increase revenues somewhat substantially. Maybe drastically. Having talked to a number of people about this, and many of these people are in the business to know a lot about it, I have agreed that we cannot sustain ourselves the way we are. I don't just mean pay our bills at the end of each month. I mean thrive and be a successful, respectable, and self-respecting municipality. For now, and if we have no "rainy day" problems, we can pay our bills. And paying our daily bills is all we can do under present conditions. We cannot amass a reserve, and we cannot do other necessary projects. All other things being equal, though, as costs rise faster than revenues, we will eventually not even be able to pay our ordinary bills. The "game" will be "over."
So again, talking to other people who are in a position to know, I have considered how we can get the money to sustain ourselves. We can raise our taxes, and we can even raise them a lot. We can vote to sustain ourselves by voting in taxes of more than 10 mills, but such a decision only lasts for two years at a time. We would then have to agree to extend the increase, and we would always be vulnerable to residents deciding they no longer care enough to pay unusually high taxes. Sustaining our Village and our lifestyle in it simply by having a very high millage is a risky and tenuous exercise.
Listening to people who know the dynamics of municipal management, I had to reconsider what I objected to about annexation. First, there was the sentimental idea of the tiny, "100% residential" burg. Once you come to accept that if we don't do something somewhat drastic, there won't be any more tiny, "100% residential" burg, you begin to look differently at the options. It seemed roundly agreed by people in the know that annexation is a very good and healthy idea. It "diversifies" the revenue stream. So what if there is a commercial component to the Village, and it's in a place where it is invisible to the triangle and has no functional effect on it? Don't almost all municipalities have areas that are zoned for residential use and other areas that are zoned for commercial use? Does the fact that the commercial zone exists in the municipality detract from the residential zone? Wouldn't the commercial zone have even less impact on the feel of the residential zone if there was a dramatic physical barrier between the two? With that kind of understanding, I lost some of the sentiment about the "100% residential" identity. Having a residential component where you can't see it mitigates the sense of contamination of the neighborhood.
As for the renter/voters, it turns out there aren't many of them over there. Nowhere near as many as there are here. Not only is the population a lot smaller than the population of what we know as BP, but sadly, many of the renters are not voters. They can't change the Village by Ordinance. There aren't enough of them.
With what has come to look like vigorous resistance to raising taxes heroically, and the fact that such an increase is tenuous anyway, with reassurance that annexation will not change the triangle, I really have no further objection. It's a good idea. I changed my mind. Am I to be accused of being open-minded and flexible? So be it. Guilty as charged.
Now there is one other argument against annexation. It's an argument made on behalf of those to be annexed. The argument was articulated by Barbara Watts and by my across-the-street neighbor, who owns warehouse property near the airport. Barbara is concerned that taxes in the annexed territory will increase, and that it will make things difficult for the taxpayers there. My across-the-street neighbor says that with the near annexation of his property by Doral, his property tax would have increased from almost $11K per year to over $26K per year. And further, he adds, he would have gotten nothing of value for the extra money. His feeling was that Doral's promise of better police service did him little good, since his property is only warehouses. He felt the same way about the offer of better ambulance service. Better police service is one of the main things we have to offer the territory we could consider annexing, too. If it seems like an insubstantial offer, as it did to my neighbor, look at it the other way around. Suppose someone told us we could pay less taxes, and in exchange, we would get County police instead of our crack BP police. No deal, right? We'd rather pay more, and have amazing police service. So why wouldn't we imagine that BP police instead of County police is a very big advantage to the annexable territory? It is to us.
I've "done a 180" about annexation. I don't feel it would harm us, I don't think it would be a mistake, and I think it's a good way to reinvent ourselves for long term existence. And I would very much sooner include commerce where we can't see it than to impose commerce in our little "100% residential" triangle. We need gas stations (well, you do), and grocery stores, and Starbucks, and doctors' and lawyers' offices, and all kinds of places to get what we need. We just don't need them here, in the triangle.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Words of Wisdom?
Lee Evett was one of the four Manager finalists. He calculated that there was not enough support on the Commission for him to have a chance, so he has withdrawn his name from consideration. He wrote to me as follows:
Fred,
Before I go, perhaps some of my observations and thoughts may be of interest.
The Park is not, in my humble opinion, financially sustainable without one or more new and reliable recurring revenue streams. [Ana Garcia said the same thing, and County Commissioner Sally Heyman has been telling us the same thing.] I realize most of the Commission members don't agree with this or are pretending to not agree. Since I talked about this issue in our "one on one" interviews, perhaps this is the reason I received two votes and not more. [Two of the current finalists received preliminary support from four Commissioners, and Lee and the other finalist received preliminary support from only two of the Commissioners. The other finalist who received only two preliminary votes has not dropped out.]
The financial deaths of cities are slow and involve amounts of money that make the possibility of bankruptcy seem, to the average citizen, out of the question. How can a municipal corporation with a $2 million dollar annual appropriation be in trouble when the average Park household earns maybe $75,000 [It is in fact an average of $67,000] per year? The citizens' frame of reference can not comprehend the Park running out of cash.
I worked for Burton and Associates for a short period helping launch their new General Fund Projection Model. It is designed to graphically demonstrate the very points I am making. Each revenue source and expenditure can be adjusted by Commission members in real time, and the results projected out ten years. If there is a problem, as I suspect, the model will make believers out of the most recalcitrant citizen.
Reliable income streams can come from internal (property owners) or external (others) sources or some combination.
Internal sources could be Assessments for such services as storm water, road and street lighting. Assessments are not technically taxes but you will never convince the property owners. Internal could also be contracting out garbage collection. Each household currently pays about $47 per month through an annual assessment using Park employees. If you can contract for less, say $25 per month per household, you will free up a considerable amount for one of the assessments that will be a new dedicated and reliable revenue stream. [Lee does not, apparently, know this idea has been considered repeatedly and rejected by BP residents. He doesn't realize how much we like our frequent garbage pick-ups. Also, this is a maneuver you can only do once. You can't continually reduce garbage pick-up until the garbage is no longer picked up, to continue to save money.]
External could be annexation of the industrial land just east of the north eastern tip of the park. Taxes paid will exceed the cost of servicing the area and the property owner and Park residents will benefit from controlling zoning and use of the property.
A long shot external is a reliable continuing appropriation or grant from the county to preserve the unique all-residential and comprehensively designed character of the Park. I see the county considering median refurbishment and storm water refurbishment, with City assessments then needed only for maintenance and not capital. The county will have to be shown unique reasons it should help the Park or it will open itself to the same request from every city in the county.
One more internal is the creation of an Endowment Fund which would slowly grow and eventually produce a meaningful long term source of revenue. The Fund would depend on the generosity of residents who remembered the Park in their wills.
You can also threaten the county with disincorporation if things don't change financially, and then they will have all the costs and no additional revenue. I don't see the threat of disincorporation coming from the present Commission, however.
And speaking of grants, they are rarely reliable, usually require matching funds and may or may not be on point with the Park's needs. In other words, they may end up being a messy band-aid instead of a solution.
And conserving cash by questioning every dollar is counter-productive. You will save some money, but cost the Park in the long run to have the staff justify each dollar or question the staff's motives and honesty by questioning routine expenditures. And in the long run you are simply slowing the decline.
All the Best,
Lee
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Erratum
In the "Free People Read Freely" post, regarding the matter of boats and RVs, I said that "no [BP] resident complained of a specific and distinct restriction on his or her actual functioning." I further specified that "No one has complained that he or she can no longer keep a boat or RV. No such consequence ever happened."
While what I said is technically true, there was in fact one person who made a specific complaint and referenced a specific restriction on her functioning. The affected functioning was not "actual" functioning, however. It was hypothetical functioning.
One of my friends who, with her late husband, owned a boat years ago, does not have a property that would allow a boat to be concealed behind a fence or foliage. Her argument against the restriction in question was that if she ever wanted to buy a boat again in the future, she couldn't keep it in BP, because she would have no place to store it, except in her driveway. The opportunity to keep boats and RVs in driveways does not apply to new boat/RV acquisitions, but only to vehicles that are already here, or that would be acquired during a one year grace period following passage of the Ordinance, or that would be purchased in the more distant future as replacements for vehicles the property owner already owns but is exchanging. These vehicles and their footprints would be "grandfathered" in. My friend imagined the possibility, which she herself would acknowledge is essentially out of the question, that she might, hypothetically, some day, like to buy a boat again, but she has no actual plans to do so.
Because of Bryan's odd phrasing, where he alleges that "over 50 families [were] negatively impacted" by the restriction, we don't really know what he means. If he means there is a consequential restriction on 50 families who own boats or RVs, he's wrong. There isn't a consequential restriction on anyone who owns a boat or RV, no matter where it's kept on their property. The one exception is that if a boat/RV owner could keep the vehicle behind a fence or foliage, but simply doesn't feel like it, then the Village would insist. If Bryan means that he knows or imagines that there are "50 families" who do not currently own a boat or an RV, have no plan or intention to buy one within the next year, but definitely want to buy such a vehicle more than a year from now, and do not have the property layout that would allow them to keep such a vehicle concealed behind a fence or foliage, he's right. The new restriction would "negatively impact" such property owners. Precisely as it would hypothetically negatively impact my friend. And this possibility seems so improbable that if Bryan thinks he actually knows of 50 such families, it would have been useful and instructive for the conversation if he had revealed who they are. Or if they had revealed themselves. After all, it was supposedly in their direct and personal interest to come forward and make their argument.
While what I said is technically true, there was in fact one person who made a specific complaint and referenced a specific restriction on her functioning. The affected functioning was not "actual" functioning, however. It was hypothetical functioning.
One of my friends who, with her late husband, owned a boat years ago, does not have a property that would allow a boat to be concealed behind a fence or foliage. Her argument against the restriction in question was that if she ever wanted to buy a boat again in the future, she couldn't keep it in BP, because she would have no place to store it, except in her driveway. The opportunity to keep boats and RVs in driveways does not apply to new boat/RV acquisitions, but only to vehicles that are already here, or that would be acquired during a one year grace period following passage of the Ordinance, or that would be purchased in the more distant future as replacements for vehicles the property owner already owns but is exchanging. These vehicles and their footprints would be "grandfathered" in. My friend imagined the possibility, which she herself would acknowledge is essentially out of the question, that she might, hypothetically, some day, like to buy a boat again, but she has no actual plans to do so.
Because of Bryan's odd phrasing, where he alleges that "over 50 families [were] negatively impacted" by the restriction, we don't really know what he means. If he means there is a consequential restriction on 50 families who own boats or RVs, he's wrong. There isn't a consequential restriction on anyone who owns a boat or RV, no matter where it's kept on their property. The one exception is that if a boat/RV owner could keep the vehicle behind a fence or foliage, but simply doesn't feel like it, then the Village would insist. If Bryan means that he knows or imagines that there are "50 families" who do not currently own a boat or an RV, have no plan or intention to buy one within the next year, but definitely want to buy such a vehicle more than a year from now, and do not have the property layout that would allow them to keep such a vehicle concealed behind a fence or foliage, he's right. The new restriction would "negatively impact" such property owners. Precisely as it would hypothetically negatively impact my friend. And this possibility seems so improbable that if Bryan thinks he actually knows of 50 such families, it would have been useful and instructive for the conversation if he had revealed who they are. Or if they had revealed themselves. After all, it was supposedly in their direct and personal interest to come forward and make their argument.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
And He's a Grand Old Doc', Too.
Chester ("Doc") Morris is a retired doctor, a former BP Commissioner, and still a member of the Miami Shores Rotary Service Club. He's been active in our community for the several decades he's lived here. Chester, and the Rotary Club, want something from us.
The Rotary Club, as is true of all men's service clubs, does charitable works. They do local projects, like providing swimming lessons for kids at the Miami Shores pool and supporting other local kids' sports programs. They provide Publix gift cards for needy families at holiday times, like Thanksgiving. They underwrite scholarships at local schools.
They do international projects, many having to do with improving general sanitation and access to potable water, as well as education-related projects in impoverished areas of the world (India, Peru, Afghanistan, Dominican Republic).
So what do Rotarians want from us? A little participation. To spend money, Rotary has to raise money, and one local fund-raiser is renting American flags to people. For a $50 yearly membership in the program, any of us can receive an American flag provided by the MSV Rotary four times a year. Flags are placed wherever you want them on July 4, Memorial Day, Veterans' Day, and Presidents' Day. Rotary leaves the flag with you anywhere from about three days to a week each of the four times. And they provide the pole, too. In my case, I donate my display to the Village, so the display occurs at Griffing Park, across 6th Avenue from Village Hall.
The Rotary Club is happy to get the $50, and homeowners are happy to have a flag delivered and picked up. You don't lift a finger. According to the flyer they recently sent, "100% of your donation goes to a worthy cause through the Miami Shores Rotary Foundation, a 501 (c)(3) organization."
If you might be interested in helping "Doc," the Rotary Club, yourself, and a number of very worthy charities this way, contact "Doc" by e-mail at morriscsm@aol.com. He'll answer any questions, and he'll set you up with a flag.
The Rotary Club, as is true of all men's service clubs, does charitable works. They do local projects, like providing swimming lessons for kids at the Miami Shores pool and supporting other local kids' sports programs. They provide Publix gift cards for needy families at holiday times, like Thanksgiving. They underwrite scholarships at local schools.
They do international projects, many having to do with improving general sanitation and access to potable water, as well as education-related projects in impoverished areas of the world (India, Peru, Afghanistan, Dominican Republic).
So what do Rotarians want from us? A little participation. To spend money, Rotary has to raise money, and one local fund-raiser is renting American flags to people. For a $50 yearly membership in the program, any of us can receive an American flag provided by the MSV Rotary four times a year. Flags are placed wherever you want them on July 4, Memorial Day, Veterans' Day, and Presidents' Day. Rotary leaves the flag with you anywhere from about three days to a week each of the four times. And they provide the pole, too. In my case, I donate my display to the Village, so the display occurs at Griffing Park, across 6th Avenue from Village Hall.
The Rotary Club is happy to get the $50, and homeowners are happy to have a flag delivered and picked up. You don't lift a finger. According to the flyer they recently sent, "100% of your donation goes to a worthy cause through the Miami Shores Rotary Foundation, a 501 (c)(3) organization."
Friday, October 25, 2013
"Free People Read Freely"
That was the title Bryan Cooper gave his newsletter post this month. And it's certainly true: a people who are free are permitted to read whatever they like. It's part of their freedom. But we can turn this quote around to say "Only people who are capable of reading are truly free." People who are unable to read, who are illiterate, or who can dope out words but not really comprehend what was written, are enslaved by their mental limitations.
Bryan provides an example of this problem. He has gone on at some length in Commission meetings, and now he devotes some of his newsletter post (Commissioners are limited to a certain number of words), to whine yet again about what he believes, or at least says, was an attempt made by me and Chuck Ross "to ban a newspaper from our Village." Bryan is referring to a petition, which was written, and which he may or may not have read, which asked the Commission to make a statement to the Biscayne Times. But the statement never was that the tabloid should be banned from the Village. The petition requested that the publisher and distributor of the Biscayne Times find some other way to distribute the paper than to dump it on every lawn, usually near the street, or in the bushes, every month, whether it is wanted or not and even whether the house is inhabited or not. We even suggested some alternative ideas, like mailing it to interested residents or leaving a stack of papers in a distribution box, as all other papers do, in a convenient place.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXUkjkQXN1w&feature=youtu.be
Did Bryan not understand this, despite having been told it directly and in English a number of times? I don't think we'll forget, as Bryan admonishes, that "Free People Read Freely." What we must also remember is that sometimes, the unlikeliest of people turn out to be incapable of reading. Or listening. Or comprehending.
Bryan also lets us know that "a large number of tax-paying residents and seniors are still struggling" financially, and according to Bryan, they will be hurt by a property tax of 9.7 mills. This kind of statement is certainly common political pandering, but Bryan doesn't tell us how he knows. If I remember correctly, his friend Noah Jacobs, whom Bryan says he appreciates, advocated for a millage of 9.5. The difference between 9.5 and 9.7 is an average of about $26 per year. Is that the injury Bryan hoped to prevent for BP residents? Bryan himself advocated for a millage of less that 9.0. That kind of revenue doesn't allow the Village to survive, but Bryan is unconcerned. In fact, he says he would really prefer we fail, and instead of remaining independent, "reach out to Miami Shores to see if we might join them." It's an odd position for a BP Commissioner to take, but Bryan is standing firm on it. Taxes in Miami Shores aggregate to more than they are in BP, and we are then committed to the kind of Code demands Bryan stridently resists in BP, so it's not clear where Bryan is going with this scheme. Out of the frying pan... so to speak. Not a good demonstration of clear thinking here.
Bryan says that "over 50 Village families" were "negatively impacted" (a curious and ambiguous term) by a restriction regarding the keeping of boats and RVs. He has either ignored or failed to understand that boat and RV owners are asked to keep these vehicles concealed behind fences or foliage, if they can, but they are permitted to keep such a vehicle in the driveway, if there is no other choice. And apart from a general complaint issued by Bryan and a couple of residents who are not impacted, no resident complained of a specific and distinct restriction on his or her actual functioning. No one has complained that he or she can no longer keep a boat or RV. No such consequence ever happened.
Bryan alleges, and not for the first time, I'm sorry to say, that "Commissioners Ross and Anderson still support annexing areas to the east of us." It is certainly true, and Roxy Ross would be the first to say so, that she has researched the matter and feels disposed at this stage to move forward with a process that might conclude with annexation, if the Commission and the neighborhood want it to. Anderson has never taken any such position. He has agreed that we have a fiscal problem, that annexation could in theory be one way to solve it, and that he would like to gather more information and keep the door open. Is Bob Anderson, a typically plain-spoken guy, too sophisticated in his thinking for Bryan? Too many nuances, too much subtlety? Most people who know Bob don't find him to be abstruse. But one way or another, Bryan either doesn't get it, or he can't keep it all straight.
Is it "time for a change?" Bryan asks. Do you "want reform?" If you do, take Bryan's advice. We have a group of three Commissioners who function as a majority, and they are leading us in a direction Bryan seems to be suggesting is not a good one. The terms of two of them, Bryan and Noah Jacobs, are ending. He wants to remind us that "December 3rd is the next election." He seems to want us to make that change, and initiate reform. I agree with him.
Bryan provides an example of this problem. He has gone on at some length in Commission meetings, and now he devotes some of his newsletter post (Commissioners are limited to a certain number of words), to whine yet again about what he believes, or at least says, was an attempt made by me and Chuck Ross "to ban a newspaper from our Village." Bryan is referring to a petition, which was written, and which he may or may not have read, which asked the Commission to make a statement to the Biscayne Times. But the statement never was that the tabloid should be banned from the Village. The petition requested that the publisher and distributor of the Biscayne Times find some other way to distribute the paper than to dump it on every lawn, usually near the street, or in the bushes, every month, whether it is wanted or not and even whether the house is inhabited or not. We even suggested some alternative ideas, like mailing it to interested residents or leaving a stack of papers in a distribution box, as all other papers do, in a convenient place.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXUkjkQXN1w&feature=youtu.be
Did Bryan not understand this, despite having been told it directly and in English a number of times? I don't think we'll forget, as Bryan admonishes, that "Free People Read Freely." What we must also remember is that sometimes, the unlikeliest of people turn out to be incapable of reading. Or listening. Or comprehending.
Bryan also lets us know that "a large number of tax-paying residents and seniors are still struggling" financially, and according to Bryan, they will be hurt by a property tax of 9.7 mills. This kind of statement is certainly common political pandering, but Bryan doesn't tell us how he knows. If I remember correctly, his friend Noah Jacobs, whom Bryan says he appreciates, advocated for a millage of 9.5. The difference between 9.5 and 9.7 is an average of about $26 per year. Is that the injury Bryan hoped to prevent for BP residents? Bryan himself advocated for a millage of less that 9.0. That kind of revenue doesn't allow the Village to survive, but Bryan is unconcerned. In fact, he says he would really prefer we fail, and instead of remaining independent, "reach out to Miami Shores to see if we might join them." It's an odd position for a BP Commissioner to take, but Bryan is standing firm on it. Taxes in Miami Shores aggregate to more than they are in BP, and we are then committed to the kind of Code demands Bryan stridently resists in BP, so it's not clear where Bryan is going with this scheme. Out of the frying pan... so to speak. Not a good demonstration of clear thinking here.
Bryan says that "over 50 Village families" were "negatively impacted" (a curious and ambiguous term) by a restriction regarding the keeping of boats and RVs. He has either ignored or failed to understand that boat and RV owners are asked to keep these vehicles concealed behind fences or foliage, if they can, but they are permitted to keep such a vehicle in the driveway, if there is no other choice. And apart from a general complaint issued by Bryan and a couple of residents who are not impacted, no resident complained of a specific and distinct restriction on his or her actual functioning. No one has complained that he or she can no longer keep a boat or RV. No such consequence ever happened.
Bryan alleges, and not for the first time, I'm sorry to say, that "Commissioners Ross and Anderson still support annexing areas to the east of us." It is certainly true, and Roxy Ross would be the first to say so, that she has researched the matter and feels disposed at this stage to move forward with a process that might conclude with annexation, if the Commission and the neighborhood want it to. Anderson has never taken any such position. He has agreed that we have a fiscal problem, that annexation could in theory be one way to solve it, and that he would like to gather more information and keep the door open. Is Bob Anderson, a typically plain-spoken guy, too sophisticated in his thinking for Bryan? Too many nuances, too much subtlety? Most people who know Bob don't find him to be abstruse. But one way or another, Bryan either doesn't get it, or he can't keep it all straight.
Is it "time for a change?" Bryan asks. Do you "want reform?" If you do, take Bryan's advice. We have a group of three Commissioners who function as a majority, and they are leading us in a direction Bryan seems to be suggesting is not a good one. The terms of two of them, Bryan and Noah Jacobs, are ending. He wants to remind us that "December 3rd is the next election." He seems to want us to make that change, and initiate reform. I agree with him.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
The Village, As I See It. How We Get There.
We need two things: enthusiasm/commitment/engagement, and money.
We had enthusiasm, commitment, and engagement from our neighbors. We have simply beaten it down over the past few years. As I see it, it should not be hard to get it back. Neighbors who do not knuckle under to pedagogy, pedantry, and pandering should not be called liars. I personally have been called a liar repeatedly, in public, once in a long letter to the Biscayne Times, by one of our neighbors, because I do not accede to whatever he says, and I challenge him when I think he's wrong. This is not a way to deal with your neighbors.
It seems painfully simple, but if Commission meetings were about the Village, and not about the Commissioners, they would be shorter meetings, they would be goal-directed, and neighbors would attend them, as they did just a few years ago. And again, if Commissioners did not make the mistake of imagining that they were somehow exalted, and that the purpose of Village government was to showcase them, if they had respect for our neighbors and our neighbors' dedication, if they understood that in very many cases, Board members are more knowledgeable and more experienced in the areas in question than the Commissioners are, Commissioners would accept and welcome input from and conclusions of the Boards, and residents would increase their own commitments. The point is we were there, and we can get back there. It's not a new invention. We don't need R&D. Just a little respect and deference. Maybe a bit of humility.
Ah, money. Isn't it always the way? Here are our choices: 1) Don't get the money, keep doing what we're doing, and fail when the time comes. It's close already. 2) Hope someone else will support us, rely on "the kindness of strangers," pursue "grants." Sure, they come along from time to time, about one kind of project or another, but they're small, they're unreliable, they typically require us to "match" them, and they do not support normal operations of a municipality. They are no way to live. You're not likely to win the lottery, but if you do, you get a ton of money, and you never have to work again. Not so with grants. You have to work for them, they're specific in what you can use them for, you're not very likely to get them, and they're not much money. And since our alleged grant expert won't help us, his suggestion is that we hire someone else to do it. Not a good strategy.
3) Economize. Done. We had too much fat before Ana Garcia got here, and now we're pretty much bare bones. Could someone find just a couple more dollars? Yeah, probably. But there's no real percentage there. It's diminishing returns, at best. At worst, it's strangling ourselves more than we're already choked.
4) Raise taxes. Yes, we have the highest millage in the county. Property values fell, they were comparatively low to begin with, the homestead exemption was increased, and we have no commercial pockets to pick, as almost all municipalities do. So we support ourselves through a combination of ad valorem taxes (property taxes) and non-ad valorem taxes (utility taxes). It's about 55/45. Most properties here (about 80%) have homestead exemptions, and their assessments can only increase by a maximum of 3% a year. Costs increase faster than that. Here's an example of this problem. At the end of 2007, the economy crashed, and with it, property values. I bought my house in 2005, near the height of the market. My assessment dropped dramatically with the crash, and I wound up paying half the property tax one year than I did the year before. But some homeowners I know, who had lived here for a long time, had assessments that were so low, because of homestead protection, that in the year my tax dropped by half, their tax went up. That's how far behind reality they were. And we depend on them to support us. You can see that it doesn't work very well. So we need to raise our taxes, because we are in a unique situation. Unless we change our situation, which will be point 5). Let's look at the implications of raising taxes. For the coming year, our millage is 9.7. The Commission set that, but they could have gone lower or somewhat higher. The highest millage they could have set was 10. One tenth of a mill, for the average house (around $300K market value) is worth about $13 a year. So if the Commission had taxed us as high as it could have, at 10 mills, it would have cost the average homeowner about $39 a year more than the tax at 9.7 mills will. The question is, if you like this neighborhood as it is, the way it was when you decided you wanted to live here, if it's worth it to you to live here, if you can afford to pay your property tax at 9.7 mills, would you be able and willing to pay an average of $39 a year more? The other way to look at it, the not nice way, is to say that if you can afford what you pay, but you couldn't afford $39 a year more, then your finances are not fit for home ownership. The fact is, if you're homesteaded, your taxes are going up 3% a year anyway. So if you're that marginal, you're not going to make it, one way or the other. Unless you favor yearly tax decreases, so you won't have to pay more, in which case Biscayne Park comes to the end of the line a lot sooner.
I would add that we have failed to provide for our other needs, like median development, the log cabin, etc, and I think it's worth considering if we should begin to assess ourselves, beyond ad valorem taxes, to create a fund to attend to these other needs. All for discussion.
5) Annexation. We might have a unique and very interesting opportunity to increase revenue. That opportunity is to annex unincorporated territory just east of our northeast corner, on the other side of the train track. This area is commercial, some industrial, and some very nice apartment building rental. There are some single family homes as well, and they are pretty much like many of the homes in Biscayne Park. Less than half of that area is residential, and most of what is is not homesteaded. So the opportunity for us is to realize significant tax revenues, far in excess of what a similar sized tract of homesteaded territory would yield, by annexing that territory, and having it be part of the municipality of Biscayne Park. Calculations suggest we would net hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, which we could use for maintenance and improvements. This is a remarkable opportunity, if it's really available to us, because it preserves BP proper, the triangle, and results in a very sizable influx of revenue. It essentially solves most or all of our fiscal problems. The drawbacks are that we can no longer claim to be "100%" residential, though the commercial component is invisible to the triangle, and we welcome a population of voters, whose interests are not likely to be the same as homeowners. The "good" news, however, is that it is beginning to appear that because of a high proportion of renters, and the unfortunate tendency of many people not to be interested in voting, there are actually very few registered voters in that territory.
I see our having some real opportunity to save ourselves, which I would very much like us to do. As best I see it, we should increase our taxes (it costs each of us very little to do so, and we're buying something we very much want), and annex. That, I think, gets our medians improved, our administrative buildings renovated, our streets repaired, and the beginning of a fund to build a barrier along the track. It also, for what it's worth, improves police activity in the area we can annex, which is good for them and good for us.
I want to serve you on the Commission, and I don't mind starting now. Please contact me at fredjonasforcommissioner@gmail.com, or call me at 305-891-5030. "For the Best We Can Be."
We had enthusiasm, commitment, and engagement from our neighbors. We have simply beaten it down over the past few years. As I see it, it should not be hard to get it back. Neighbors who do not knuckle under to pedagogy, pedantry, and pandering should not be called liars. I personally have been called a liar repeatedly, in public, once in a long letter to the Biscayne Times, by one of our neighbors, because I do not accede to whatever he says, and I challenge him when I think he's wrong. This is not a way to deal with your neighbors.
It seems painfully simple, but if Commission meetings were about the Village, and not about the Commissioners, they would be shorter meetings, they would be goal-directed, and neighbors would attend them, as they did just a few years ago. And again, if Commissioners did not make the mistake of imagining that they were somehow exalted, and that the purpose of Village government was to showcase them, if they had respect for our neighbors and our neighbors' dedication, if they understood that in very many cases, Board members are more knowledgeable and more experienced in the areas in question than the Commissioners are, Commissioners would accept and welcome input from and conclusions of the Boards, and residents would increase their own commitments. The point is we were there, and we can get back there. It's not a new invention. We don't need R&D. Just a little respect and deference. Maybe a bit of humility.
Ah, money. Isn't it always the way? Here are our choices: 1) Don't get the money, keep doing what we're doing, and fail when the time comes. It's close already. 2) Hope someone else will support us, rely on "the kindness of strangers," pursue "grants." Sure, they come along from time to time, about one kind of project or another, but they're small, they're unreliable, they typically require us to "match" them, and they do not support normal operations of a municipality. They are no way to live. You're not likely to win the lottery, but if you do, you get a ton of money, and you never have to work again. Not so with grants. You have to work for them, they're specific in what you can use them for, you're not very likely to get them, and they're not much money. And since our alleged grant expert won't help us, his suggestion is that we hire someone else to do it. Not a good strategy.
3) Economize. Done. We had too much fat before Ana Garcia got here, and now we're pretty much bare bones. Could someone find just a couple more dollars? Yeah, probably. But there's no real percentage there. It's diminishing returns, at best. At worst, it's strangling ourselves more than we're already choked.
4) Raise taxes. Yes, we have the highest millage in the county. Property values fell, they were comparatively low to begin with, the homestead exemption was increased, and we have no commercial pockets to pick, as almost all municipalities do. So we support ourselves through a combination of ad valorem taxes (property taxes) and non-ad valorem taxes (utility taxes). It's about 55/45. Most properties here (about 80%) have homestead exemptions, and their assessments can only increase by a maximum of 3% a year. Costs increase faster than that. Here's an example of this problem. At the end of 2007, the economy crashed, and with it, property values. I bought my house in 2005, near the height of the market. My assessment dropped dramatically with the crash, and I wound up paying half the property tax one year than I did the year before. But some homeowners I know, who had lived here for a long time, had assessments that were so low, because of homestead protection, that in the year my tax dropped by half, their tax went up. That's how far behind reality they were. And we depend on them to support us. You can see that it doesn't work very well. So we need to raise our taxes, because we are in a unique situation. Unless we change our situation, which will be point 5). Let's look at the implications of raising taxes. For the coming year, our millage is 9.7. The Commission set that, but they could have gone lower or somewhat higher. The highest millage they could have set was 10. One tenth of a mill, for the average house (around $300K market value) is worth about $13 a year. So if the Commission had taxed us as high as it could have, at 10 mills, it would have cost the average homeowner about $39 a year more than the tax at 9.7 mills will. The question is, if you like this neighborhood as it is, the way it was when you decided you wanted to live here, if it's worth it to you to live here, if you can afford to pay your property tax at 9.7 mills, would you be able and willing to pay an average of $39 a year more? The other way to look at it, the not nice way, is to say that if you can afford what you pay, but you couldn't afford $39 a year more, then your finances are not fit for home ownership. The fact is, if you're homesteaded, your taxes are going up 3% a year anyway. So if you're that marginal, you're not going to make it, one way or the other. Unless you favor yearly tax decreases, so you won't have to pay more, in which case Biscayne Park comes to the end of the line a lot sooner.
I would add that we have failed to provide for our other needs, like median development, the log cabin, etc, and I think it's worth considering if we should begin to assess ourselves, beyond ad valorem taxes, to create a fund to attend to these other needs. All for discussion.
5) Annexation. We might have a unique and very interesting opportunity to increase revenue. That opportunity is to annex unincorporated territory just east of our northeast corner, on the other side of the train track. This area is commercial, some industrial, and some very nice apartment building rental. There are some single family homes as well, and they are pretty much like many of the homes in Biscayne Park. Less than half of that area is residential, and most of what is is not homesteaded. So the opportunity for us is to realize significant tax revenues, far in excess of what a similar sized tract of homesteaded territory would yield, by annexing that territory, and having it be part of the municipality of Biscayne Park. Calculations suggest we would net hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, which we could use for maintenance and improvements. This is a remarkable opportunity, if it's really available to us, because it preserves BP proper, the triangle, and results in a very sizable influx of revenue. It essentially solves most or all of our fiscal problems. The drawbacks are that we can no longer claim to be "100%" residential, though the commercial component is invisible to the triangle, and we welcome a population of voters, whose interests are not likely to be the same as homeowners. The "good" news, however, is that it is beginning to appear that because of a high proportion of renters, and the unfortunate tendency of many people not to be interested in voting, there are actually very few registered voters in that territory.
I see our having some real opportunity to save ourselves, which I would very much like us to do. As best I see it, we should increase our taxes (it costs each of us very little to do so, and we're buying something we very much want), and annex. That, I think, gets our medians improved, our administrative buildings renovated, our streets repaired, and the beginning of a fund to build a barrier along the track. It also, for what it's worth, improves police activity in the area we can annex, which is good for them and good for us.
I want to serve you on the Commission, and I don't mind starting now. Please contact me at fredjonasforcommissioner@gmail.com, or call me at 305-891-5030. "For the Best We Can Be."
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
The Village, As I See It. Where Can We Go?
We all chose to live here for two main reasons. One is that we like the feel of the Village, and the other is that home prices are more modest than they are in some other "nice" communities, like Miami Shores. Let's assume we like both features, but that we want to continue to see ourselves as "better" than some other communities, like North Miami. For many years, we have had signs warning drivers not even to think about speeding. So let's also assume we have always liked to think of ourselves, and to be thought of by others, as a particularly orderly place where we would like, and expect, to have low crime. Let's imagine we still feel that way: we like very low crime, and we're willing to extend ourselves to keep it that way. Finally, let's assume that we can best meet our goals if we have control over ourselves, so therefore, we want to continue to exist as an independent municipality.
What, then, does Biscayne Park need? What can it use? What keeps us at the level we want? What makes us better, but within our limitations?
The first thing we need is the means to exist as a separate and independent municipality. The only requirement is that we be able to pay our bills. All we need is to make as much as we spend, or more than we spend. And part of responsible municipal planning is a reserve: money that is not specifically earmarked for anything, but is available to attend to unplanned, though loosely predictable, problems. It's no more complicated than that, and we'll talk more about it in another post.
We're a physical community, and a community of neighbors. We like it that way. Our physical characteristics, for better and for worse, are small streets, relatively closely set houses, lots of medians (unusual for communities), and a historic log cabin. A train track borders us. We're also more or less 100% residential. We could have distinguished ourselves by having power lines buried, but two Commissions ago chose not to pursue that.
My assumption is that we're largely content with our physical characteristics. At least we've learned to live with them. There has been talk of the advantage that would be conferred by having a more defined pedestrian way, but frankly, there's little we can do about it. Arthur Griffing did not install sidewalks, and he didn't leave us room to add them. To try to do that, we would spend a huge amount of money, and we would lose either homeowners' swales on one edge of the pavement, or medians on the other. No one wants to do either. The alternative forwarded by some is to paint pedestrian/bicyclist paths in the streets we have, but the streets are so narrow that there is no practical way to do it. Try walking down the street, and note what you do when a car is coming. Now imagine there was a path painted along one edge of the street. The street isn't any wider. When a car comes, wouldn't you do the same thing if there were lines as you do when there aren't? You don't have a choice. So for those of us who walk, we're careful, and we know the rules.
What has happened to our medians is that over time, they have deteriorated. They have been plagued by a failure to organize plantings, leading to mismatched trees, and the "understory" is now poorly kept grass, weeds, and in some places expanses of dirt. We have planted some new trees in the past 5-6 years, and fortunately, Parks and Parkways has seen to it that there is a plan and a theme, at least to the extent we can try to develop medians on the strength of donated trees. Better than nothing, though. What we need now is a real understory. We need a coherent and appealing system of low trees, shrubs, and ground cover that will complete the medians, to make them look nice, to create a more dramatic punctuation in the layout of the neighborhood, and to prevent the simple problem of people driving over them to make U-turns. Yes, your neighbors do that. Or your guests do. Or you do. Please don't.
Our administrative center, including the log cabin and the police headquarters, is distinctly inadequate. There isn't enough space, and what we have is in disrepair. We spent some money to stop roof leaks a few years ago. We also found out how the rats were getting in, so we plugged holes (literally), but we need a more extensive renovation. The police function used to be in the log cabin, but there wasn't enough room for its growing needs, so now we use a trailer next to the log cabin for part of the police function. All of this needs to be reunified, and we need a structure more usable than a trailer, for which, by the way, we pay rent. Money down the drain. We need to do for our hotel de ville what we did for public works. We need the kind of personal statement we made when we erected our entry sign.
Our streets are certainly passable, but some have cracks and most have edges that are falling away in chunks. We need to look ahead to repaving and bolstering of the edges. This, by the way, also creates for us the possibility to widen the streets, maybe only a few inches on each side, but enough to make walking safer and more comfortable.
There has been talk of whether we should expand lighting in the Village. The controversy is that we imagine increased lighting helps visibility and diminishes crime, but some are concerned that some of our nocturnal animals thrive better with low or absent nighttime lighting. And some studies seem clearly to suggest that increased lighting leads to increased crime, by providing light for criminals who need to see what they're doing. All worth consideration, though.
That train track is almost nothing but trouble. And it will become moreso when the activity on it increases, which it is scheduled to do in the next couple of years. What I think we need is a barrier, a wall, along the expanse of track that borders the Village. Communities in Palm Beach and maybe Broward Counties have placed walls like this at their borders with I-95. The border of Coconut Grove along US 1, shortly after I-95 south ends, features the same thing. Barriers like this diminish noise, improve privacy, and prevent trespassing. We need this along the track. It will improve quality of life for all of us, especially the properties on our eastern border. As life improves over there, property values (and ad valorem taxes) rise, and we wind up with prouder and more ambitious residents. Maybe over time, more and more of those properties switch from duplex to single family, too. All good.
For the record, I do not think we should welcome a school of any kind, and I do not think we should surrender part of the Village proper to a commercial component. Neither of these is why any of us chose to live here. All of our children have schools to attend, and all of us have places to shop. We do not need to create any of that here within the triangle. And for those who fantasize income from a small commercial fixture next to Village Hall, it seems unimaginable to me that such a fixture would generate more than nominal income to the Village. Certainly not enough to make any meaningful impact in our fiscal problems. If anyone thinks seriously that it would, I would love to see the projections, and to know how they were arrived at.
The other feature of this neighborhood is ourselves, the residents, the people. To put this simply, when I moved here in 2005, Commission meetings were packed with audience members, and there were no openings on our Boards. People were interested and engaged. And Commissioners were interested and engaged. And before that, there were resident groups that took an interest in the neighborhood. There was a "homeowners' association," "Smarties," and others. There was fund-raising and bake sales. Not all of these people turned out to be strictly constructive, but they cared about something. This is no longer the case. Now, almost no one comes to Commission meetings, and some Boards can't function, because they don't have enough members to have a quorum. Some Commissioners apparently can't be bothered to appoint residents to Boards, or they themselves can't find anyone who is interested any more. At least one Commissioner has gone on record as saying we should disband some Boards, and condense the rest. I guess it's easier to ignore them that way. The only army of residents now is a rag-tag group of guerrilla malcontents, who want nothing more than to oppose and sabotage. We need to re-engage those among us who still have interest, and stimulate those who still could. We need the Commission to stop suppressing and frustrating residents, and we need meetings to be run efficiently and with direction and purpose. We need to welcome resident input, not deflect, dismiss, or suppress it. And we need Boards filled and enthusiastic. We need to recognize that all of us are the same. Some are Commissioners (temporarily), some are Board members, and some happen not to be either. But we all count. When Boards speak, Commissioners have to listen. And comply. Who could be bothered to sit on a Board, if he or she could predict that the Board's advice would be disregarded by the Commission? We need Commissions that share a basic aim: stabilization and essential improvement of the neighborhood. Doctors might not agree about what intervention is likely to be most effective, but they should all want the patient to get better. Those who take some delight in having patients die, like Jack Kevorkian, go to jail. Although Kevorkian, too, had his followers. It takes all kinds.
We also need to recognize that rules exist for a reason. Our Codes are important to us, and they took a good deal of a number of people's time to craft. Codes are what make the feel and style of a neighborhood. Codes are what make Coral Gables and Miami Shores what they are. They're also what make Hialeah what it is. Codes please and satisfy and reassure and lead to pride. They also demand and frustrate. They are not to be ignored by the residents, and they are most certainly not to be ignored by the Commissioners who are charged, and who pledged, to uphold them. We need not to dumb ourselves down. We need to lift all of us up.
In the next installment, I'll talk about how we can get where we can go.
I want to serve you on the Commission, and I don't mind starting now. Please contact me at fredjonasforcommissioner@gmail.com, or call me at 305-891-5030. "For the Best We Can Be."
What, then, does Biscayne Park need? What can it use? What keeps us at the level we want? What makes us better, but within our limitations?
The first thing we need is the means to exist as a separate and independent municipality. The only requirement is that we be able to pay our bills. All we need is to make as much as we spend, or more than we spend. And part of responsible municipal planning is a reserve: money that is not specifically earmarked for anything, but is available to attend to unplanned, though loosely predictable, problems. It's no more complicated than that, and we'll talk more about it in another post.
We're a physical community, and a community of neighbors. We like it that way. Our physical characteristics, for better and for worse, are small streets, relatively closely set houses, lots of medians (unusual for communities), and a historic log cabin. A train track borders us. We're also more or less 100% residential. We could have distinguished ourselves by having power lines buried, but two Commissions ago chose not to pursue that.
My assumption is that we're largely content with our physical characteristics. At least we've learned to live with them. There has been talk of the advantage that would be conferred by having a more defined pedestrian way, but frankly, there's little we can do about it. Arthur Griffing did not install sidewalks, and he didn't leave us room to add them. To try to do that, we would spend a huge amount of money, and we would lose either homeowners' swales on one edge of the pavement, or medians on the other. No one wants to do either. The alternative forwarded by some is to paint pedestrian/bicyclist paths in the streets we have, but the streets are so narrow that there is no practical way to do it. Try walking down the street, and note what you do when a car is coming. Now imagine there was a path painted along one edge of the street. The street isn't any wider. When a car comes, wouldn't you do the same thing if there were lines as you do when there aren't? You don't have a choice. So for those of us who walk, we're careful, and we know the rules.
What has happened to our medians is that over time, they have deteriorated. They have been plagued by a failure to organize plantings, leading to mismatched trees, and the "understory" is now poorly kept grass, weeds, and in some places expanses of dirt. We have planted some new trees in the past 5-6 years, and fortunately, Parks and Parkways has seen to it that there is a plan and a theme, at least to the extent we can try to develop medians on the strength of donated trees. Better than nothing, though. What we need now is a real understory. We need a coherent and appealing system of low trees, shrubs, and ground cover that will complete the medians, to make them look nice, to create a more dramatic punctuation in the layout of the neighborhood, and to prevent the simple problem of people driving over them to make U-turns. Yes, your neighbors do that. Or your guests do. Or you do. Please don't.
Our administrative center, including the log cabin and the police headquarters, is distinctly inadequate. There isn't enough space, and what we have is in disrepair. We spent some money to stop roof leaks a few years ago. We also found out how the rats were getting in, so we plugged holes (literally), but we need a more extensive renovation. The police function used to be in the log cabin, but there wasn't enough room for its growing needs, so now we use a trailer next to the log cabin for part of the police function. All of this needs to be reunified, and we need a structure more usable than a trailer, for which, by the way, we pay rent. Money down the drain. We need to do for our hotel de ville what we did for public works. We need the kind of personal statement we made when we erected our entry sign.
Our streets are certainly passable, but some have cracks and most have edges that are falling away in chunks. We need to look ahead to repaving and bolstering of the edges. This, by the way, also creates for us the possibility to widen the streets, maybe only a few inches on each side, but enough to make walking safer and more comfortable.
There has been talk of whether we should expand lighting in the Village. The controversy is that we imagine increased lighting helps visibility and diminishes crime, but some are concerned that some of our nocturnal animals thrive better with low or absent nighttime lighting. And some studies seem clearly to suggest that increased lighting leads to increased crime, by providing light for criminals who need to see what they're doing. All worth consideration, though.
That train track is almost nothing but trouble. And it will become moreso when the activity on it increases, which it is scheduled to do in the next couple of years. What I think we need is a barrier, a wall, along the expanse of track that borders the Village. Communities in Palm Beach and maybe Broward Counties have placed walls like this at their borders with I-95. The border of Coconut Grove along US 1, shortly after I-95 south ends, features the same thing. Barriers like this diminish noise, improve privacy, and prevent trespassing. We need this along the track. It will improve quality of life for all of us, especially the properties on our eastern border. As life improves over there, property values (and ad valorem taxes) rise, and we wind up with prouder and more ambitious residents. Maybe over time, more and more of those properties switch from duplex to single family, too. All good.
For the record, I do not think we should welcome a school of any kind, and I do not think we should surrender part of the Village proper to a commercial component. Neither of these is why any of us chose to live here. All of our children have schools to attend, and all of us have places to shop. We do not need to create any of that here within the triangle. And for those who fantasize income from a small commercial fixture next to Village Hall, it seems unimaginable to me that such a fixture would generate more than nominal income to the Village. Certainly not enough to make any meaningful impact in our fiscal problems. If anyone thinks seriously that it would, I would love to see the projections, and to know how they were arrived at.
The other feature of this neighborhood is ourselves, the residents, the people. To put this simply, when I moved here in 2005, Commission meetings were packed with audience members, and there were no openings on our Boards. People were interested and engaged. And Commissioners were interested and engaged. And before that, there were resident groups that took an interest in the neighborhood. There was a "homeowners' association," "Smarties," and others. There was fund-raising and bake sales. Not all of these people turned out to be strictly constructive, but they cared about something. This is no longer the case. Now, almost no one comes to Commission meetings, and some Boards can't function, because they don't have enough members to have a quorum. Some Commissioners apparently can't be bothered to appoint residents to Boards, or they themselves can't find anyone who is interested any more. At least one Commissioner has gone on record as saying we should disband some Boards, and condense the rest. I guess it's easier to ignore them that way. The only army of residents now is a rag-tag group of guerrilla malcontents, who want nothing more than to oppose and sabotage. We need to re-engage those among us who still have interest, and stimulate those who still could. We need the Commission to stop suppressing and frustrating residents, and we need meetings to be run efficiently and with direction and purpose. We need to welcome resident input, not deflect, dismiss, or suppress it. And we need Boards filled and enthusiastic. We need to recognize that all of us are the same. Some are Commissioners (temporarily), some are Board members, and some happen not to be either. But we all count. When Boards speak, Commissioners have to listen. And comply. Who could be bothered to sit on a Board, if he or she could predict that the Board's advice would be disregarded by the Commission? We need Commissions that share a basic aim: stabilization and essential improvement of the neighborhood. Doctors might not agree about what intervention is likely to be most effective, but they should all want the patient to get better. Those who take some delight in having patients die, like Jack Kevorkian, go to jail. Although Kevorkian, too, had his followers. It takes all kinds.
We also need to recognize that rules exist for a reason. Our Codes are important to us, and they took a good deal of a number of people's time to craft. Codes are what make the feel and style of a neighborhood. Codes are what make Coral Gables and Miami Shores what they are. They're also what make Hialeah what it is. Codes please and satisfy and reassure and lead to pride. They also demand and frustrate. They are not to be ignored by the residents, and they are most certainly not to be ignored by the Commissioners who are charged, and who pledged, to uphold them. We need not to dumb ourselves down. We need to lift all of us up.
In the next installment, I'll talk about how we can get where we can go.
I want to serve you on the Commission, and I don't mind starting now. Please contact me at fredjonasforcommissioner@gmail.com, or call me at 305-891-5030. "For the Best We Can Be."
Monday, October 21, 2013
What Can I Say? I'm So Flattered.
Some people call them Steviegrams, and some call them nastigrams. They're the e-mails Steve Bernard sends to his flock. He sends them to the people he discourages from coming to meetings, but encourages to rely on him and his wisdom and insight instead. These are the kinds of people whom he can massage into thinking of running for Commission, even though they have no concept of Village government and functioning, telling them things like "it's really a lot easier than you might think to become a candidate." The people of whom "so many...have let [him] know of [their] frustration with local government these past few years." (What? How could they be "frustrated with local government these past few years?" Steve himself hand picked the majority of the Commission. Steve and his flock should be like pigs in...a pig pen. The last thing on earth they should be is frustrated.) Steve relies on these people to listen to him, believe absolutely anything he says, and read what he writes to them. In fact, he tells them, "If you've been reading my e-mails over the years, you'll know I've tried to foster the kind of government many of us would like to see." Yup, that's what they'll know, if they just read his e-mails and keep away from Commission meetings. If they do stay away, he can tell them how he cherishes respect, civility, and a professional demeanor, and they'll never know who the arch enemy of respect, civility, and a professional demeanor is.
Steve knows his flock. He knows them very well. He can tell them what kind of Commissioner he wants to represent him, and he "believe[s] that's what [they] want, also." "Believes" that's what they want? He knows it for a fact. He knows what they want better than they do. If they ever want to know what they want, they are welcome to ask him. And in case he's stimulated any of them to consider running, or placed them in a trance, he is "available to discuss all this week." Don Bernard will grant audiences to the humble and deferential.
I'm quoting, of course, from today's Steviegram. But setting aside all the mind-numbing, patronizing, infantilizing pablum, Steve made a special effort to draw attention to me and this blog. It was a deeply moving experience. He mentioned my candidacy for Commission (aw, shucks, Steve), and he seems to suggest I am a miserable, ill-tempered, undermining wretch. He even quoted me, although the best he could do was to quote a post from two years ago. He quoted my "best guess" that there was no chance on earth that he and Cooper and Jacobs and Watts would not collude outside the "Sunshine." That speculation of mine seems to have meant something important to Steve. I don't know if he's protesting too much, but he's certainly protesting a lot. If he thinks anything in the past two years has shown me how unlikely it is that I was right, I must have missed it. Then, Steve directs his readers to this blog, so they can see for themselves what I have to say, "how [I say] it," and what I "stand for." He seems to have run out of illustrative quotes, though, but oddly, he accuses me of failing to cite by quoting. I do hope he'll look again, and maybe pick up some of those quotes he seems to have overlooked. But he did direct his flock to this blog, and I'm very grateful to him for it.
So I'm sorry for Steve and whatever "personal circumstances" will reportedly prevent him from lavishing on us his caring, dedicated, and honest representation. I hope things improve for him, or his family, or whencever the problem is coming. I'm guessing that the reason he's on me, and trying to get someone to run, is that Cooper has decided not to run again. I certainly hope that's the reason. Although I wouldn't want Steve to think I was ungrateful for all Cooper, and Jacobs, and Watts, and Steve himself have done for the Village. We wouldn't be the same without them. We'd be very, very different.
Steve knows his flock. He knows them very well. He can tell them what kind of Commissioner he wants to represent him, and he "believe[s] that's what [they] want, also." "Believes" that's what they want? He knows it for a fact. He knows what they want better than they do. If they ever want to know what they want, they are welcome to ask him. And in case he's stimulated any of them to consider running, or placed them in a trance, he is "available to discuss all this week." Don Bernard will grant audiences to the humble and deferential.
I'm quoting, of course, from today's Steviegram. But setting aside all the mind-numbing, patronizing, infantilizing pablum, Steve made a special effort to draw attention to me and this blog. It was a deeply moving experience. He mentioned my candidacy for Commission (aw, shucks, Steve), and he seems to suggest I am a miserable, ill-tempered, undermining wretch. He even quoted me, although the best he could do was to quote a post from two years ago. He quoted my "best guess" that there was no chance on earth that he and Cooper and Jacobs and Watts would not collude outside the "Sunshine." That speculation of mine seems to have meant something important to Steve. I don't know if he's protesting too much, but he's certainly protesting a lot. If he thinks anything in the past two years has shown me how unlikely it is that I was right, I must have missed it. Then, Steve directs his readers to this blog, so they can see for themselves what I have to say, "how [I say] it," and what I "stand for." He seems to have run out of illustrative quotes, though, but oddly, he accuses me of failing to cite by quoting. I do hope he'll look again, and maybe pick up some of those quotes he seems to have overlooked. But he did direct his flock to this blog, and I'm very grateful to him for it.
So I'm sorry for Steve and whatever "personal circumstances" will reportedly prevent him from lavishing on us his caring, dedicated, and honest representation. I hope things improve for him, or his family, or whencever the problem is coming. I'm guessing that the reason he's on me, and trying to get someone to run, is that Cooper has decided not to run again. I certainly hope that's the reason. Although I wouldn't want Steve to think I was ungrateful for all Cooper, and Jacobs, and Watts, and Steve himself have done for the Village. We wouldn't be the same without them. We'd be very, very different.
Correction to "Save the Date..." Post
I had reason to go back to the e-mail where I requested information about the 80th anniversary do. I said I had received "no reply."
My mistake. I did receive a reply. I had forgotten the details of it, and it felt so insubstantial to me that it seemed as if I had been given no information.
The reply was as follows:
"Fred:
"Yes, we are set on the 22nd and everything is going according to plan. We just received confirmation that the grant was approved, all we are waiting on now is the agreement from the county. I recommend that you get with Issa on [re]scheduling the Food and Tunes.
"The 80th Anniversary Celebration is a joint effort coordinated by the commission, staff, and contractors (North Miami Community Concert Band and Dr Paul George) and will include an art festival.
Thank you,
Candido Sosa-Cruz"
Again, my apologies. I think I must still have been under the influence of not having known about this at all, and certainly not having been warned to "Save the Date," and was still left having no idea where the event was to take place (I still don't know), what time, whether a meal is involved, how much, etc.
But I was wrong to have remembered that I received "no reply" at all.
My mistake. I did receive a reply. I had forgotten the details of it, and it felt so insubstantial to me that it seemed as if I had been given no information.
The reply was as follows:
"Fred:
"Yes, we are set on the 22nd and everything is going according to plan. We just received confirmation that the grant was approved, all we are waiting on now is the agreement from the county. I recommend that you get with Issa on [re]scheduling the Food and Tunes.
"The 80th Anniversary Celebration is a joint effort coordinated by the commission, staff, and contractors (North Miami Community Concert Band and Dr Paul George) and will include an art festival.
Thank you,
Candido Sosa-Cruz"
Again, my apologies. I think I must still have been under the influence of not having known about this at all, and certainly not having been warned to "Save the Date," and was still left having no idea where the event was to take place (I still don't know), what time, whether a meal is involved, how much, etc.
But I was wrong to have remembered that I received "no reply" at all.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Save the Date. I Guess.
The Foundation had planned Food and Tunes for Friday, November 22. By the way, we're hoping to offer an excellent bluegrass band. If you have an opinion about F&T and bluegrass, let us know. We thought we'd spice things up with some interesting variety. I've heard this band (Avocado Estate), and they're terrific. Joe Chao knows about them, too, and he also recommends them.
At any rate, this past week, I got an e-mail from our administration letting me know we can't have F&T on 11/22, because the date has been reserved. By the Village. For the 80th Anniversary celebration. Right, news to me, too. So I wrote back, thanking the administration for the heads up, and asking where the event was to take place, and what the content would be. I did not get a reply.
I understand that Barbara Watts has taken over coordinating this event, and that there is to be a speaker, who will talk about BP history. That's really all I know or have been told. Not by Barbara, though. I suppose I could have dogged this a bit more, but I asked the questions, and I accept no reply as the answer.
So I'm passing this along, in case you were considering some other option for Friday evening, November 22, 2013.
Just for comparison, there was a committee of residents who organized and planned the 75th Anniversary soiree. I'm pretty sure John Hornbuckle, who was also our Mayor at the time, was on that committee. It was a nice evening and a nice event. I was there. There was dinner, a speaker (Seth Bramson, a local historian), a belly dancing show, and a generally good time. The event was successfully planned well in advance. I was the guest of Kelly Mallette, who was a Commissioner and had bought a table and invited me to join her and Juan.
See ya 11/22? Since F&T is off, I myself have no other plans. We'll let you know when F&T is rescheduled.
At any rate, this past week, I got an e-mail from our administration letting me know we can't have F&T on 11/22, because the date has been reserved. By the Village. For the 80th Anniversary celebration. Right, news to me, too. So I wrote back, thanking the administration for the heads up, and asking where the event was to take place, and what the content would be. I did not get a reply.
I understand that Barbara Watts has taken over coordinating this event, and that there is to be a speaker, who will talk about BP history. That's really all I know or have been told. Not by Barbara, though. I suppose I could have dogged this a bit more, but I asked the questions, and I accept no reply as the answer.
So I'm passing this along, in case you were considering some other option for Friday evening, November 22, 2013.
Just for comparison, there was a committee of residents who organized and planned the 75th Anniversary soiree. I'm pretty sure John Hornbuckle, who was also our Mayor at the time, was on that committee. It was a nice evening and a nice event. I was there. There was dinner, a speaker (Seth Bramson, a local historian), a belly dancing show, and a generally good time. The event was successfully planned well in advance. I was the guest of Kelly Mallette, who was a Commissioner and had bought a table and invited me to join her and Juan.
See ya 11/22? Since F&T is off, I myself have no other plans. We'll let you know when F&T is rescheduled.
Friday, October 18, 2013
"It's More Important to Do it Right Than to Do it Quickly"
If you haven't heard Noah Jacobs make this statement often enough, then you don't come to Commission meetings. It's one of his favorite themes, and he occasionally adheres to it, if it's convenient for his aims of the moment.
Not last night, though. This was one of those we're-in-a-super-hurry-and-we-don't-have-time-for-proper-protocol situations. Here's the set-up:
We're getting ready to hire a new manager. We had seven candidates, and last night the number was whittled to four. They will be interviewed by the Commission en banc at the November 6 meeting, and a decision will be announced on November 14. So just under a month from now, we will have a new manager. We could have been a bit more expeditious, but Noah, Barbara Watts, and Bryan Cooper wanted to take it slow. They wanted time, lots of time, to ask around for advice, or direction, from some of their friends, or neighbors, or advisors. They weren't confident of their own thinking in this matter, despite the fact that they as Commissioners have more information than anyone else. Whom do you ask, when you have more information than anyone else, and the decision rests with you?
At the same time, it seems we got a call from the City of North Miami, who apparently are eager to agree on a water contract with us. They supply our water, and it seems both we and they have lost whatever contract ever existed in the past. John Hearn, our attorney, heard from their attorney, and someone wants to settle this matter.
Well, it appears the CNM attorney wasn't just sitting around thinking about that old missing water contract and what a good idea it would be to make a new one. It seems someone called CNM to suggest a contract. That someone was Noah Jacobs.
If you're thinking what I was thinking, you're wrong. I was thinking that if we have an opportunity to sign a contract as important and long-lasting as a water contract, and if we're about to hire a new manager, wouldn't this be the perfect project for the new manager? Shouldn't we, and wouldn't it be proper for us to, hold off the contract negotiation until the new manager is hired? Just because this makes sense, and just because it happens to be obvious, just because it might be better to do this right than to do it quickly, doesn't mean it's the best idea. There might be something you overlooked. I'll tell you what it is.
Noah Jacobs' term in office is about to end. He has threatened in the past to run for re-election, and he picked up an election packet yesterday. Noah has accomplished nothing, and he has been a huge drain on the Village, its functioning, and its finances. Noah is not remotely competent to hold office as a Commissioner, and the fact that he and two of his pals elected him Mayor is a sick joke. But Noah has adopted a crusade or two along the way. Nothing meaningful, but something to think about when he looks in the mirror. One of those crusades was about our water. He likes to portray the water as foul and its delivery as flawed. He's made lots of noise about the water, and CNM actually replaced some pipes in the southern end of the Village, to try to increase pressure. The new pipes were faulty, and they were never connected, but Noah thinks he accomplished something. Now, he's in a huge hurry to have something else, anything else, to say for himself. Like let's say a new water contract with CNM. But since the BP election is around the corner, Noah doesn't have time to wait for a manager to research the matter, participate in contract negotiations, or handle it him- or herself. Of course that's what a manager is for, but Noah doesn't have time for that kind of nonsense. He wants a new contract signed, quickly, so he can allege that he accomplished something.
And that's why it's sometimes more important to do something quickly than to do it right.
Not last night, though. This was one of those we're-in-a-super-hurry-and-we-don't-have-time-for-proper-protocol situations. Here's the set-up:
We're getting ready to hire a new manager. We had seven candidates, and last night the number was whittled to four. They will be interviewed by the Commission en banc at the November 6 meeting, and a decision will be announced on November 14. So just under a month from now, we will have a new manager. We could have been a bit more expeditious, but Noah, Barbara Watts, and Bryan Cooper wanted to take it slow. They wanted time, lots of time, to ask around for advice, or direction, from some of their friends, or neighbors, or advisors. They weren't confident of their own thinking in this matter, despite the fact that they as Commissioners have more information than anyone else. Whom do you ask, when you have more information than anyone else, and the decision rests with you?
At the same time, it seems we got a call from the City of North Miami, who apparently are eager to agree on a water contract with us. They supply our water, and it seems both we and they have lost whatever contract ever existed in the past. John Hearn, our attorney, heard from their attorney, and someone wants to settle this matter.
Well, it appears the CNM attorney wasn't just sitting around thinking about that old missing water contract and what a good idea it would be to make a new one. It seems someone called CNM to suggest a contract. That someone was Noah Jacobs.
If you're thinking what I was thinking, you're wrong. I was thinking that if we have an opportunity to sign a contract as important and long-lasting as a water contract, and if we're about to hire a new manager, wouldn't this be the perfect project for the new manager? Shouldn't we, and wouldn't it be proper for us to, hold off the contract negotiation until the new manager is hired? Just because this makes sense, and just because it happens to be obvious, just because it might be better to do this right than to do it quickly, doesn't mean it's the best idea. There might be something you overlooked. I'll tell you what it is.
Noah Jacobs' term in office is about to end. He has threatened in the past to run for re-election, and he picked up an election packet yesterday. Noah has accomplished nothing, and he has been a huge drain on the Village, its functioning, and its finances. Noah is not remotely competent to hold office as a Commissioner, and the fact that he and two of his pals elected him Mayor is a sick joke. But Noah has adopted a crusade or two along the way. Nothing meaningful, but something to think about when he looks in the mirror. One of those crusades was about our water. He likes to portray the water as foul and its delivery as flawed. He's made lots of noise about the water, and CNM actually replaced some pipes in the southern end of the Village, to try to increase pressure. The new pipes were faulty, and they were never connected, but Noah thinks he accomplished something. Now, he's in a huge hurry to have something else, anything else, to say for himself. Like let's say a new water contract with CNM. But since the BP election is around the corner, Noah doesn't have time to wait for a manager to research the matter, participate in contract negotiations, or handle it him- or herself. Of course that's what a manager is for, but Noah doesn't have time for that kind of nonsense. He wants a new contract signed, quickly, so he can allege that he accomplished something.
And that's why it's sometimes more important to do something quickly than to do it right.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
"For the Best We Can Be"
I like it. Two of my friends suggested it as a campaign slogan, and I think I'll use it. As of today, I'm officially declared as a candidate for Village Commission. Campaigning is from now until voting day, December 3, so please vote for me.
If you don't want to vote for me, then vote for someone else. Just vote. It's the last time the Village will make voting as inconvenient as possible for us, and from now on, after this December, we will have our Village election during the general election.
Here's my platform: I'm pointing out that I have lived in the Park since 2005, and that I have been active, having been a past or present member of Planning and Zoning, Code Review, and now the Foundation, of which I am the President. I'm suggesting that our biggest issue, unfortunately, is the survival of the Village as an independent municipality. We've gone beyond wanting simply to be successful; now it's a basic matter of survival. I'm happy to report that I'm not the only one who knows this. Roxy Ross and Bob Anderson know it, Bryan Cooper only gives us 10 years to live (though this does not appear to be a problem to him), and Noah Jacobs has been able to figure out that we need money. He hasn't made clear what he thinks we need it for, but at least he detects some kind of problem. Steve Bernard has occasionally advocated for higher ad valorem taxes, though he opposes other taxes, so I'm guessing he, too, has begun to figure out that there's a problem. I'm advocating strongly here, though. We're in deep trouble, and I want us to do something about it.
I have specific goals, too. First, we need a reserve. This is critical. We are unprepared for any eventuality at all, and in time, our ability to experience increased revenue from ad valorem tax increases will be outstripped by the increases in costs of things. The way we're fighting this battle is a losing strategy.
After the reserve, we need essential improvements if it's our goal to be other than run down. We need median development, we need renovations to the Village Hall/log cabin and police headquarters, we need street repairs, and there is the possibility that it would help us to increase outdoor lighting. In my opinion, we should also plan to erect a barrier the length of our eastern border between us and the train track. This will provide comfort and relief from noise pollution, and it will reduce crime, vandalism, and mischief.
We also need to kill two birds with one stone: we need a turnover on the present Commission, to reduce discord and dead weight, and to have Commissioners with vision and positive regard for the Village. Two of the problematic Commissioners, Cooper and Jacobs, are ending their terms, and we need them both replaced.
If you've been making an attempt to read between the lines, an important thing we need is money. In this neighborhood, assuming we like the neighborhood as it is (otherwise, why would any of us have chosen to live here?), there are two stable ways we can get money. One is by raising our taxes, and the other is by annexation of a revenue-rich area. As for our taxes, some will say, and complain, that BP ad valorem taxes are the highest in the county. True, and there's a reason for that. We don't have commercial pockets to pick, as almost all other municipalities do, and our properties are comparatively modest in market price. Golden Beach doesn't have commercial properties, either, but the house values are so dramatically high that they can glean lots of ad valorem revenue without charging the millage we do. So if we want to live here, we have to pay for it. It's value for money spent. We have also, by the way, chosen to have a remarkable and award-winning police force that has resulted in a remarkably low crime rate, and an unspeakably high rate of "clearance" (identification and arrest of those responsible for crimes). We don't have to choose that level of police activity and effectiveness, and if we're willing to diminish protection, so we're no better than anyone else, then we can save money.
If we don't want to pay higher taxes, and some people don't, then we have to annex the area east of us across the train track. Either mechanism will do, and both are better than either one alone. The problem we have, which is why we need the turnover I suggested in the Commission, is those people who don't want tax increases, and they don't want to annex. They want to consign us to death as a municipality. That's not OK with me. I didn't choose to live here for that.
So I hope you'll vote for me for Commission in December. I think I can help. I'm not in a position to promote anyone else right now, since no one else has yet declared. When they do, I'll let you know, and I'll tell you which ones, other than myself, I like for Commission.
Please feel free to contact me about my campaign and about my platform. I want to serve you on the Commission, and I don't mind starting now.
If you don't want to vote for me, then vote for someone else. Just vote. It's the last time the Village will make voting as inconvenient as possible for us, and from now on, after this December, we will have our Village election during the general election.
Here's my platform: I'm pointing out that I have lived in the Park since 2005, and that I have been active, having been a past or present member of Planning and Zoning, Code Review, and now the Foundation, of which I am the President. I'm suggesting that our biggest issue, unfortunately, is the survival of the Village as an independent municipality. We've gone beyond wanting simply to be successful; now it's a basic matter of survival. I'm happy to report that I'm not the only one who knows this. Roxy Ross and Bob Anderson know it, Bryan Cooper only gives us 10 years to live (though this does not appear to be a problem to him), and Noah Jacobs has been able to figure out that we need money. He hasn't made clear what he thinks we need it for, but at least he detects some kind of problem. Steve Bernard has occasionally advocated for higher ad valorem taxes, though he opposes other taxes, so I'm guessing he, too, has begun to figure out that there's a problem. I'm advocating strongly here, though. We're in deep trouble, and I want us to do something about it.
I have specific goals, too. First, we need a reserve. This is critical. We are unprepared for any eventuality at all, and in time, our ability to experience increased revenue from ad valorem tax increases will be outstripped by the increases in costs of things. The way we're fighting this battle is a losing strategy.
After the reserve, we need essential improvements if it's our goal to be other than run down. We need median development, we need renovations to the Village Hall/log cabin and police headquarters, we need street repairs, and there is the possibility that it would help us to increase outdoor lighting. In my opinion, we should also plan to erect a barrier the length of our eastern border between us and the train track. This will provide comfort and relief from noise pollution, and it will reduce crime, vandalism, and mischief.
We also need to kill two birds with one stone: we need a turnover on the present Commission, to reduce discord and dead weight, and to have Commissioners with vision and positive regard for the Village. Two of the problematic Commissioners, Cooper and Jacobs, are ending their terms, and we need them both replaced.
If you've been making an attempt to read between the lines, an important thing we need is money. In this neighborhood, assuming we like the neighborhood as it is (otherwise, why would any of us have chosen to live here?), there are two stable ways we can get money. One is by raising our taxes, and the other is by annexation of a revenue-rich area. As for our taxes, some will say, and complain, that BP ad valorem taxes are the highest in the county. True, and there's a reason for that. We don't have commercial pockets to pick, as almost all other municipalities do, and our properties are comparatively modest in market price. Golden Beach doesn't have commercial properties, either, but the house values are so dramatically high that they can glean lots of ad valorem revenue without charging the millage we do. So if we want to live here, we have to pay for it. It's value for money spent. We have also, by the way, chosen to have a remarkable and award-winning police force that has resulted in a remarkably low crime rate, and an unspeakably high rate of "clearance" (identification and arrest of those responsible for crimes). We don't have to choose that level of police activity and effectiveness, and if we're willing to diminish protection, so we're no better than anyone else, then we can save money.
If we don't want to pay higher taxes, and some people don't, then we have to annex the area east of us across the train track. Either mechanism will do, and both are better than either one alone. The problem we have, which is why we need the turnover I suggested in the Commission, is those people who don't want tax increases, and they don't want to annex. They want to consign us to death as a municipality. That's not OK with me. I didn't choose to live here for that.
So I hope you'll vote for me for Commission in December. I think I can help. I'm not in a position to promote anyone else right now, since no one else has yet declared. When they do, I'll let you know, and I'll tell you which ones, other than myself, I like for Commission.
Please feel free to contact me about my campaign and about my platform. I want to serve you on the Commission, and I don't mind starting now.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
One Shutdown Appears to be Over
Let's say, merely for purpose of discussion, that a minority faction of one political party decided to try to overpower the whole country. In the most self-centered and infantile way, it had a group temper tantrum, threatening the rest of Congress and the rest of its party, that it would sabotage the country if it didn't get its way. It was apparently willing to allow the country to cease functioning and even to suffer serious damage to its fiscal viability and power and reputation in the world at large. This was all over resentment that it didn't get its way on one issue: the Affordable Care Act. Even members of this same party felt this tactic was outrageous and inordinate, and that Congresspeople had to grow up and accept the larger consensus, and reality. It took some real muscle from the grownups in Congress to bring this stalemate to an end. But everyone had had enough, and the shutdown has been ended.
Not a subtle analogy, right? And it is truly what we have been facing, and continue to face, in Biscayne Park. A small group of immature neighbors who simply want their way about self-serving issues, or sometimes no identifiable issues, have been holding the Village hostage, and they are apparently prepared to have the Village fail as a punishment for its disrespect of them. They have succeeded in preventing the Village from raising funds everyone, except one Commissioner (Watts), agrees it needs for its survival. They have blocked every viable avenue of support for the Village. One of them has announced the eventual death of the Village, in 10 years, and he refuses to lift a finger to prevent it. In a telephone and e-mail conversation I had with one of our manager candidates, this man, who has a whole career of experience, says he disagrees we have 10 years to live. He thinks it's more like five years. I imagine he has told that to the five Commissioners who have interviewed him. Or who should have interviewed him by now. Commissioners have to whittle the field to three by Thursday night, though this may depend on whether they have gotten the guidance they said they needed from someone or other.
So the country dodged a bullet over the federal "fiscal cliff." It's a little less clear the Village will dodge a bullet. The majority of the current Commission-- Jacobs, Cooper, and Watts-- have us squarely in their sights, and they have already set in motion the mechanism of destruction. There is a possibility that at least some of that can be reversed if we act quickly and decisively, but it's critical to end the stranglehold this majority has on the Village. Whether Cooper is right that we have 10 years to live, or Lee Evett is right that it's closer to five, we must develop an adequate revenue stream, and we have to begin to do it soon. The Commission majority has hog-tied our ability to raise revenue from ad valorem property tax for another year. So we'll hope for no surprise expenses or crises in this coming year. The same majority has done its best to prevent the possibility of annexing other territory, or even exploring the idea, but we may have another chance, if it doesn't get too late fast.
The Cooper and Jacobs Commission seats expire in December. It's critical that we displace one or both of them. Neither of them has brought anything to the table, so it's no loss to us if we vote them both out. It's a big loss to us if we don't.
Not a subtle analogy, right? And it is truly what we have been facing, and continue to face, in Biscayne Park. A small group of immature neighbors who simply want their way about self-serving issues, or sometimes no identifiable issues, have been holding the Village hostage, and they are apparently prepared to have the Village fail as a punishment for its disrespect of them. They have succeeded in preventing the Village from raising funds everyone, except one Commissioner (Watts), agrees it needs for its survival. They have blocked every viable avenue of support for the Village. One of them has announced the eventual death of the Village, in 10 years, and he refuses to lift a finger to prevent it. In a telephone and e-mail conversation I had with one of our manager candidates, this man, who has a whole career of experience, says he disagrees we have 10 years to live. He thinks it's more like five years. I imagine he has told that to the five Commissioners who have interviewed him. Or who should have interviewed him by now. Commissioners have to whittle the field to three by Thursday night, though this may depend on whether they have gotten the guidance they said they needed from someone or other.
So the country dodged a bullet over the federal "fiscal cliff." It's a little less clear the Village will dodge a bullet. The majority of the current Commission-- Jacobs, Cooper, and Watts-- have us squarely in their sights, and they have already set in motion the mechanism of destruction. There is a possibility that at least some of that can be reversed if we act quickly and decisively, but it's critical to end the stranglehold this majority has on the Village. Whether Cooper is right that we have 10 years to live, or Lee Evett is right that it's closer to five, we must develop an adequate revenue stream, and we have to begin to do it soon. The Commission majority has hog-tied our ability to raise revenue from ad valorem property tax for another year. So we'll hope for no surprise expenses or crises in this coming year. The same majority has done its best to prevent the possibility of annexing other territory, or even exploring the idea, but we may have another chance, if it doesn't get too late fast.
The Cooper and Jacobs Commission seats expire in December. It's critical that we displace one or both of them. Neither of them has brought anything to the table, so it's no loss to us if we vote them both out. It's a big loss to us if we don't.
Friday, October 11, 2013
The Best Laid Plans
I could have called this "To Be (Able to Trust), or Not To Be (Able to Trust), That is the Question," but it seemed too long.
The Village hires a planner. The firm's name is Bell David. Named for Mr Jerry Bell and Mr Alex David. Bell doesn't come around much any more. Now we get David. It's not that we need much help planning. The Village is so small, and our scope so narrow, that we don't really have any ambitions per se. What we need is advice regarding statutes and procedures: what they are and what municipalities have to do to satisfy them.
For example, regarding the matter of the school, the planner needed to know whether municipalities like ours are required by state law to make provision for a school. He needed to know if there was the possibility of an exemption. If there was, he needed to apply for it for us. If we had already been approved for one, he needed to know not to have us provide for a school in our comprehensive plan anyway, thereby negating the exemption.
Or on the matter of the possibility of annexing nearby territory, the planner needed to know if there was a substantial intent on the part of the County to get such areas annexed. As it happens, our planner does planning projects all over the county, and he works closely with the County Commission. He needed to know that a piece of the County near the airport was up for annexation, and that four municipalities had been working for ten years, partially against each other, to divide that territory (Miami Herald, 10/10/13). It should not have been a surprise to the planner to find that the County denied all four applications, reportedly because it disapproves of simply annexing a commercial tract in order to squeeze the businesses for the taxes they can provide. The planner should also know whether this decision represents a blanket posture for annexations in general, or whether there were other and unrevealed issues regarding the territory in question.
To be able to provide advice, insight, and perspective like this, the planner would have to have two characteristics. First, the planner would have to know the rules and relevant dynamics, and he would have to know what he was doing. Second, the planner would have to have the interests of Biscayne Park, his client, as his central concern. Specifically, he would have to place the interests of his client above his own interests. For example, if there was a reason his client was not required to provide zoning for a school, and the planner either didn't know if his client wanted a school or knew his client did not want a school, he would have to protect the client from getting a school, even though it provides more work and more fees for the planner if the client does have to make room for a school. And if the planner had reason to know it might be unlikely that a municipality could absorb some nearby territory through annexation, he would have to discourage the client from seeking to annex, even though it would provide far more work and fees for the planner if the client did pursue annexation.
The fact is, I don't know for sure whether Biscayne Park was required to zone for a school. I suspect not, since the Park is an unusual neighborhood, there are exemptions for neighborhoods like ours, and we were in fact named on a list of exempt communities. The planner brushes all of this aside, and tells us that we were not exempt and could not have been exempt. To accept this conclusion, I would have to determine to trust the planner, and to consider him competent and trustworthy. I have no more reason to do that than I have to know for sure whether our exemption was solid, or could have been made so. What I do know is that the planner has provided a great deal of advocacy for the church and the school, and he was reportedly overheard talking to the church/school people as if they were his main interest, and he was willing to sacrifice the Village for them.
And I don't know whether the County would consider an annexation application from us differently than it did from Doral, Medley, Miami Springs, and Virginia Gardens regarding the large tract near the airport. I don't know whether the planner knows about the problem with this application, or whether he has inquired of County Commissioners as to how they would look upon an application from us. If "three years ago, the cities submitted their agreement [and] the County's planning advisory board recommended that the Commissioners deny all the requests" (yesterday's Herald article), I would think the planner would know that. (I would certainly like to think Sally Heyman would not have been urging us to go for annexation if she knew her County Commission colleagues would not be accepting.) But the planner has focused only on annexation-related tasks, and how much it would cost us to accomplish them. This is fine, and certainly what we would want to know, as long as the planner is also seeing the big picture, like whether an annexation attempt is likely or not likely to succeed. Again, for me to assume that he has kept this perspective would require me to trust him, and his capability, and his judgement, and his advocacy of the Village first. I'm not sure I have reason enough to do that.
We need the services of a planner. He can help us, and he knows, or should know, rules and procedures no one else would know. He should have valuable contacts. But for him to provide the help we need, he has to be interested in us, even more than he is interested in himself. Our planner's time is not cheap. He charges us $125 an hour. That fee should be enough to keep him dedicated to us. If it isn't, he needs to tell us we're below market. Or he needs to quit working for us, and find a better-endowed client. Or perhaps we need someone with a clearer dedication to us. A competent Commission would address such an issue. We have what we have until December.
The Village hires a planner. The firm's name is Bell David. Named for Mr Jerry Bell and Mr Alex David. Bell doesn't come around much any more. Now we get David. It's not that we need much help planning. The Village is so small, and our scope so narrow, that we don't really have any ambitions per se. What we need is advice regarding statutes and procedures: what they are and what municipalities have to do to satisfy them.
For example, regarding the matter of the school, the planner needed to know whether municipalities like ours are required by state law to make provision for a school. He needed to know if there was the possibility of an exemption. If there was, he needed to apply for it for us. If we had already been approved for one, he needed to know not to have us provide for a school in our comprehensive plan anyway, thereby negating the exemption.
Or on the matter of the possibility of annexing nearby territory, the planner needed to know if there was a substantial intent on the part of the County to get such areas annexed. As it happens, our planner does planning projects all over the county, and he works closely with the County Commission. He needed to know that a piece of the County near the airport was up for annexation, and that four municipalities had been working for ten years, partially against each other, to divide that territory (Miami Herald, 10/10/13). It should not have been a surprise to the planner to find that the County denied all four applications, reportedly because it disapproves of simply annexing a commercial tract in order to squeeze the businesses for the taxes they can provide. The planner should also know whether this decision represents a blanket posture for annexations in general, or whether there were other and unrevealed issues regarding the territory in question.
To be able to provide advice, insight, and perspective like this, the planner would have to have two characteristics. First, the planner would have to know the rules and relevant dynamics, and he would have to know what he was doing. Second, the planner would have to have the interests of Biscayne Park, his client, as his central concern. Specifically, he would have to place the interests of his client above his own interests. For example, if there was a reason his client was not required to provide zoning for a school, and the planner either didn't know if his client wanted a school or knew his client did not want a school, he would have to protect the client from getting a school, even though it provides more work and more fees for the planner if the client does have to make room for a school. And if the planner had reason to know it might be unlikely that a municipality could absorb some nearby territory through annexation, he would have to discourage the client from seeking to annex, even though it would provide far more work and fees for the planner if the client did pursue annexation.
The fact is, I don't know for sure whether Biscayne Park was required to zone for a school. I suspect not, since the Park is an unusual neighborhood, there are exemptions for neighborhoods like ours, and we were in fact named on a list of exempt communities. The planner brushes all of this aside, and tells us that we were not exempt and could not have been exempt. To accept this conclusion, I would have to determine to trust the planner, and to consider him competent and trustworthy. I have no more reason to do that than I have to know for sure whether our exemption was solid, or could have been made so. What I do know is that the planner has provided a great deal of advocacy for the church and the school, and he was reportedly overheard talking to the church/school people as if they were his main interest, and he was willing to sacrifice the Village for them.
And I don't know whether the County would consider an annexation application from us differently than it did from Doral, Medley, Miami Springs, and Virginia Gardens regarding the large tract near the airport. I don't know whether the planner knows about the problem with this application, or whether he has inquired of County Commissioners as to how they would look upon an application from us. If "three years ago, the cities submitted their agreement [and] the County's planning advisory board recommended that the Commissioners deny all the requests" (yesterday's Herald article), I would think the planner would know that. (I would certainly like to think Sally Heyman would not have been urging us to go for annexation if she knew her County Commission colleagues would not be accepting.) But the planner has focused only on annexation-related tasks, and how much it would cost us to accomplish them. This is fine, and certainly what we would want to know, as long as the planner is also seeing the big picture, like whether an annexation attempt is likely or not likely to succeed. Again, for me to assume that he has kept this perspective would require me to trust him, and his capability, and his judgement, and his advocacy of the Village first. I'm not sure I have reason enough to do that.
We need the services of a planner. He can help us, and he knows, or should know, rules and procedures no one else would know. He should have valuable contacts. But for him to provide the help we need, he has to be interested in us, even more than he is interested in himself. Our planner's time is not cheap. He charges us $125 an hour. That fee should be enough to keep him dedicated to us. If it isn't, he needs to tell us we're below market. Or he needs to quit working for us, and find a better-endowed client. Or perhaps we need someone with a clearer dedication to us. A competent Commission would address such an issue. We have what we have until December.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
They're Ba-ack.
It was back-to-"school" night at Planning and Zoning tonight. After P&Z finished its normal agenda of permit applications, it entertained the Busta show, starring the Bustas and two of their assistants. One assistant was an architect, and the other was a traffic study expert, who had performed something that was presented as a traffic study.
The Bustas had two other helpers tonight. One was Eve Boutsis, whom the Village pays, supposedly to provide legal expertise for the Village's benefit, and the other was Alex David, whom the Village also pays, supposedly to provide municipal planning advice in furtherance of the Village's interests. But tonight, both of our paid professionals worked hard to get the Busta group its day care facility. Frankly, I doubt this is true, but one Village resident claims to have overheard Alex David tell Team Busta that he would see to it the application went through, otherwise he would angle us toward annexation by Miami Shores. I don't really believe anything that outrageous happened, but that's what someone told me. On the other hand, Team Busta did get excellent and energetic advocacy from the professionals the Village hires to protect it, so who knows. The Village did get sold down the river. And a bill of goods, too.
We're now told the aim is for 80 "students," of whom the youngest will be six weeks and the oldest will be six years. I still want to know what the curriculum for six-week-olds is. We're also told that the Village's only difficult, very difficult intersection will not be badly impacted at all by the delivery and retrieval of these 80 infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Every objection or even adverse observation by Village residents, even those who live right there, was made to drift lovingly away by the traffic study expert. Nope, no problems at all. Smooth as silk. Boutsis and David threw in a couple of strategic precautions, to shut the complainers up, but largely, they did what they were paid (by us, but not for us) to do in furtherance of Team Busta's goal: get that day care open, and let's make some money.
Boutsis and David apparently did their jobs well, because they persuaded all four members of P&Z that the requirements for a variance were met, so P&Z voted unanimously to recommend granting of the variance when the matter is presented to the Commission. The variance, by the way, is to allow the day care to function in buildings that are too close to the street and to the property line: less than 50 feet. There was also some talk, via an offer from Ma Busta, to erect a fence around the property, so the cherubs wouldn't run into the street. Would you like a fence around your property, to protect your own cherubs or your dogs? So would the Espinosas. Forget it. But don't tell Sandy Busta and Eve Boutsis and Alex David to forget it.
The underpinning is this. Several years ago, the Village agreed in its comprehensive plan, recommended by the very same Mr David, to permit zoning for a school, because Mr David said the state required it of us. Someone later discovered the Village had been given an exemption, but Mr David says this is simply not so. So we agreed to the school provision. Mr David has gotten that provision parlayed into permission for a day care, and here we are, paying an attorney and a planner to help Ms Busta and the Church of the Resurrection and the Breathtakingly Reverend Alberto Cutie have their way with the Village.
I doubt this counts as good news, but there is a suggestion for a yearly review of the traffic activity at this intersection. I'm not sure what difference it will make, because Team Busta's traffic survey magician should have no trouble demonstrating that whatever happens is not a problem, and the day care is there to stay anyway.
I'd like to say I learned something at back-to-school night, but I'm not sure I really understand what exactly happened. Or at least how it happened.
Oh, and by the way, the room was surprisingly empty. This kind of meeting usually brings out lots of Village residents, but it appears that somehow, whatever effort to provide "notice" of the meeting was attempted simply didn't work tonight. Had three residents not gone out of their way to tell me about this meeting, the total attendance of residents would have been four. But I was told, so it was five. I've seen 30-40 in that room for that topic. Someone was being careful not to awaken sleeping dogs.
The Bustas had two other helpers tonight. One was Eve Boutsis, whom the Village pays, supposedly to provide legal expertise for the Village's benefit, and the other was Alex David, whom the Village also pays, supposedly to provide municipal planning advice in furtherance of the Village's interests. But tonight, both of our paid professionals worked hard to get the Busta group its day care facility. Frankly, I doubt this is true, but one Village resident claims to have overheard Alex David tell Team Busta that he would see to it the application went through, otherwise he would angle us toward annexation by Miami Shores. I don't really believe anything that outrageous happened, but that's what someone told me. On the other hand, Team Busta did get excellent and energetic advocacy from the professionals the Village hires to protect it, so who knows. The Village did get sold down the river. And a bill of goods, too.
We're now told the aim is for 80 "students," of whom the youngest will be six weeks and the oldest will be six years. I still want to know what the curriculum for six-week-olds is. We're also told that the Village's only difficult, very difficult intersection will not be badly impacted at all by the delivery and retrieval of these 80 infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Every objection or even adverse observation by Village residents, even those who live right there, was made to drift lovingly away by the traffic study expert. Nope, no problems at all. Smooth as silk. Boutsis and David threw in a couple of strategic precautions, to shut the complainers up, but largely, they did what they were paid (by us, but not for us) to do in furtherance of Team Busta's goal: get that day care open, and let's make some money.
Boutsis and David apparently did their jobs well, because they persuaded all four members of P&Z that the requirements for a variance were met, so P&Z voted unanimously to recommend granting of the variance when the matter is presented to the Commission. The variance, by the way, is to allow the day care to function in buildings that are too close to the street and to the property line: less than 50 feet. There was also some talk, via an offer from Ma Busta, to erect a fence around the property, so the cherubs wouldn't run into the street. Would you like a fence around your property, to protect your own cherubs or your dogs? So would the Espinosas. Forget it. But don't tell Sandy Busta and Eve Boutsis and Alex David to forget it.
The underpinning is this. Several years ago, the Village agreed in its comprehensive plan, recommended by the very same Mr David, to permit zoning for a school, because Mr David said the state required it of us. Someone later discovered the Village had been given an exemption, but Mr David says this is simply not so. So we agreed to the school provision. Mr David has gotten that provision parlayed into permission for a day care, and here we are, paying an attorney and a planner to help Ms Busta and the Church of the Resurrection and the Breathtakingly Reverend Alberto Cutie have their way with the Village.
I doubt this counts as good news, but there is a suggestion for a yearly review of the traffic activity at this intersection. I'm not sure what difference it will make, because Team Busta's traffic survey magician should have no trouble demonstrating that whatever happens is not a problem, and the day care is there to stay anyway.
I'd like to say I learned something at back-to-school night, but I'm not sure I really understand what exactly happened. Or at least how it happened.
Oh, and by the way, the room was surprisingly empty. This kind of meeting usually brings out lots of Village residents, but it appears that somehow, whatever effort to provide "notice" of the meeting was attempted simply didn't work tonight. Had three residents not gone out of their way to tell me about this meeting, the total attendance of residents would have been four. But I was told, so it was five. I've seen 30-40 in that room for that topic. Someone was being careful not to awaken sleeping dogs.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Look, Ma! No Hands!!
Do you know what the exclamation marks signify? Self-satisfaction. Anxiety. And a realization that you're taking a risk, and if you didn't feel a need to be like the other kids, and unnerve your mother, you probably wouldn't be doing this. You remember, don't you? You were taking a chance, riding your two-wheeler with no hands. Heady. Dangerous. And you thought your mother would be impressed. You knew she'd be scared, though. Fact of the matter was, you were a bit scared yourself. But you were six, or seven, or eight. It's what children did. Not too bright, really, but one of those rites of foolhardiness. Did you fall? No? Neither did I. Or if I did, I have conveniently forgotten. No helmets in those days, either. Kind of stupid, when you think back on it. You feel clever if you don't fall. You'd feel like an idiot if you did. You'd get hurt, too. And what would your mother say if you fell? The funny thing is, when you look back on it, if you won, you didn't really win anything. If you lost, you lost a lot.
Our Commission has an identifiable and reliable majority. They don't necessarily think the same, heck, some of them don't think at all, but they vote together on most things. The crazier the issue, and the more it disturbs the rest of us, the more determined and united they are. I get it. I was six or seven or eight once, too.
What you're doing is dangerous.
So? No it's not.
You're going to get hurt. And you'll get us hurt.
Uh-uhuh. (You know, that sing-songy way.)
This majority, well, two thirds of it, anyway, has been able to recognize that we are in fiscal and functional trouble. One of them has been able to see the end of the Village in just 10 years. We can't live, because we don't have money. We should get some, we tell them. Nope, they reply. But it's easy. We can raise taxes. We want to raise our taxes. Nope. How about we keep our taxes the same, but we take on another area that pays more taxes per capita than we do? Nope. But we're not succeeding; we won't survive! Yup. Won't you do something? Nope.
Look, they tell us, it's your own fault. You had money, 10 years ago, and you didn't spend it wisely. So now you're to be punished. But I had nothing to say about how that money was spent, you plead, and anyway, I'd be much more careful now. Too bad, they tell us. You're not getting any more money. Anyway, December is around the corner. You better hope Santa Claus brings you money. But there is no Santa Claus, you urge. (After all, not everyone in this story is a child.) Oh, well, they admonish, you just better hope there is.
What's really crazy, crazier than anything else, is that both of these two characters occupy Commission seats that expire in less than two months. One of them claims he's running again. Presumably, he sees himself as a success, and he wants another term. Or he has no insight, which he hasn't, and he's breathtakingly arrogant, which he is, and he can't figure out what's wrong with this picture. The other one hasn't yet let us know his ambitions for himself and for us. Of course it won't matter, if we realize that our ambitions for him and us are more determinative than his are.
So when you decided to show yourself off, and demonstrate what a talented daredevil you were, did you ride with no hands on a busy street, with construction and rocks and cracks in the street, traffic coming from every angle, and blind-folded? No? You're not that stupid, right? Well, you're not. And if you had been, it's more likely you would have been grounded than lauded. Or you would have gotten badly hurt. You would have deserved it, too.
Look, Ma. No hands.
Our Commission has an identifiable and reliable majority. They don't necessarily think the same, heck, some of them don't think at all, but they vote together on most things. The crazier the issue, and the more it disturbs the rest of us, the more determined and united they are. I get it. I was six or seven or eight once, too.
What you're doing is dangerous.
So? No it's not.
You're going to get hurt. And you'll get us hurt.
Uh-uhuh. (You know, that sing-songy way.)
This majority, well, two thirds of it, anyway, has been able to recognize that we are in fiscal and functional trouble. One of them has been able to see the end of the Village in just 10 years. We can't live, because we don't have money. We should get some, we tell them. Nope, they reply. But it's easy. We can raise taxes. We want to raise our taxes. Nope. How about we keep our taxes the same, but we take on another area that pays more taxes per capita than we do? Nope. But we're not succeeding; we won't survive! Yup. Won't you do something? Nope.
Look, they tell us, it's your own fault. You had money, 10 years ago, and you didn't spend it wisely. So now you're to be punished. But I had nothing to say about how that money was spent, you plead, and anyway, I'd be much more careful now. Too bad, they tell us. You're not getting any more money. Anyway, December is around the corner. You better hope Santa Claus brings you money. But there is no Santa Claus, you urge. (After all, not everyone in this story is a child.) Oh, well, they admonish, you just better hope there is.
What's really crazy, crazier than anything else, is that both of these two characters occupy Commission seats that expire in less than two months. One of them claims he's running again. Presumably, he sees himself as a success, and he wants another term. Or he has no insight, which he hasn't, and he's breathtakingly arrogant, which he is, and he can't figure out what's wrong with this picture. The other one hasn't yet let us know his ambitions for himself and for us. Of course it won't matter, if we realize that our ambitions for him and us are more determinative than his are.
So when you decided to show yourself off, and demonstrate what a talented daredevil you were, did you ride with no hands on a busy street, with construction and rocks and cracks in the street, traffic coming from every angle, and blind-folded? No? You're not that stupid, right? Well, you're not. And if you had been, it's more likely you would have been grounded than lauded. Or you would have gotten badly hurt. You would have deserved it, too.
Look, Ma. No hands.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
What Would it Take?
During the last Commission meeting, the prickly issue of whether or not to pursue annexation was presented. Ross and Anderson thought we should pursue it, meaning pay the planner the next installment (approximately $2500) to prepare an application, so we can gather more information and keep the door open. Jacobs and Cooper do not want to annex, so they voted not to spend another dime or another second on the matter. (More in a moment.)
Watts was the possible swing vote. This was one of those situations, as I described, where Ross and Anderson had voted yes, then Jacobs and Cooper voted no, at which point Jacobs looked at Watts and instructed her to vote with him and Cooper. Often enough, like then, she's a good girl and does what she's told, at least depending on who's instructing her.
So Watts registered her required vote against continuing the annexation exploration. But she didn't simply vote no, as Jacobs no doubt intended. She messed up the process by saying it would require something really "compelling" for her to vote to continue looking at annexation, and she indicated there were questions, the answers to which she didn't yet know. Oh, Barbara, Jacobs was no doubt thinking, can't you just speak when you're spoken to? I asked for your vote, not your thinking.
So the question is raised: what could possibly compel Barbara Watts to consider annexation? What questions does she wish answered? And to anticipate part of this discussion, Ross picked up on Watts' wish for information, and she offered answers to questions. But since Watts' little comment was part of a whole sentence that included her no vote, Jacobs pounced on the consensus he wanted. It was 3-2 against, and that's all he needed to know. No, no, no, he bludgeoned Ross, we have a vote, and we're done with this issue. If you want to see what ugly, infantile behavior, masquerading as a political discussion among chronological adults looks like, please come to Commission meetings. But hurry before the December election. The real show depends on having Jacobs in the Mayor's seat, and it's not clear that will continue to happen.
At any rate, back to the Watts question: what would compel her to consider annexation?
Annexation is mostly about revenue. It's about revenue we don't have. It's about revenue we can get by taking new territory. The questions are what do we want the money for, and can we get it any other way? And as a frame of reference, four of our Commissioners feel we need money. Ross and Anderson do, Jacobs says he knows we do, and Cooper frankly gives us a prognosis of 10 years to live. That's a bit more dire than the other three.
What would "compel" Watts to think we should look further into annexation? She's offered that we can place a little strip mall next to Village Hall, but she seems to have done that as a concession, not because she necessarily agrees we need the money. The fact that we live hand-to-mouth and have no reserve does not compel Watts to think we need a better source of revenue than we have. Watts does not appear to take a long view of anything, and she has no identifiable sense of perspective or proportion, so it is not clear the absence of a reserve means anything to her.
Watts takes a very limited and specific interest in our medians. She advocates for the Australian Pine. Other than that, she does not appear to know or care that the medians are poorly developed and minimally maintained. And to the extent that she can get her two Commission pals to join her in snatching small amounts of money out of the reserve we don't have to pay for maintenance of the menace Australian Pines, she does not appear to see this minor maintenance task as requiring more revenue than we have. The general condition of BP medians does not compel Watts to think we have a problem we should solve.
Our administrative buildings are in trouble. The log cabin and the police headquarters need significant renovation, and the police headquarters need to exist in a real building connected to the log cabin, not in a trailer. There is no possibility on earth that we can address any of that with our "budget." "Compelling" enough for Watts? Evidently not. Presumably, if asked, she would either say she doesn't agree this is a problem, or she would decide to let it be some future Commission's problem. As I said, no long view, no sense of perspective or proportion.
We need a new public address and recording system for our meetings. Funny enough, Watts speaks so softly and so fast that she is the best advertisement for why we need the upgrade. The fact that recordings are hard to hear is another reason. Watts was one of those who ran on the "sanctity of the public record" platform. The cost of an upgrade is about $10K, by some estimates. Forget it, we don't have it. Problem to Watts? Seems not. And increased lighting in the Village? Uh, I don't think so.
Watts is constantly looking out for others. She hates tax increases, because they squeeze taxpayers. So she thinks; so she's been told. She agreed to a millage of 9.7, but she refused to tax us at 9.75. The difference for the average homeowner is about $6.50 per year. Her own house is a bit more on the modest side, so maybe $3-$4 for her. But since she is so concerned about the finances of other people, she found it impossible to tax at that higher rate, the one that would have cost us about $6.50 a year more. She also resisted annexation of the territory in question, because it would increase the ad valorem property tax of those people over there. She's just looking out for their financial interests. But we pay all of our employees, except the manager and the police chief, at an embarrassingly low rate. These people, our police, our public works people, our administrative staff, are important to the Village, they work hard here, and they have expenses and families of their own. How is it Watts isn't concerned about them? And what about the people who don't receive any further income from us, because we fired them to save the money? Does Watts give them much thought?
Watts has a limited and strategic interest in public art. If our buying a piece of public art would help one of her friends, she wants it. If not, she's not interested. But we can't afford public art. She and her two Commission co-conspirators agreed to steal $2500 out of Village coffers to help pay for a mural, $2500 that was not specifically budgeted for public art and which therefore didn't exactly exist for that purpose. But we may not get the mural anyway, since we don't have the rest of the money, unless Watts, Jacobs, and Cooper decide to steal that, too. But does this problem compel Watts to think that perhaps we do after all need more revenue? No such evidence.
Nobody likes crime, and nobody likes noise. A barrier along the tracks would help solve both problems. This is a hugely expensive project that would take years and maybe decades to complete. It is not on our radar screen and barely in our fantasy life. Reason for Watts to think we should save, and increase revenues? Nope.
But suppose Watts agreed we could use a bit more money, or that she was willing to concede to all four of her colleagues who agree we are a sinking ship. Our easy, direct way of raising money, the only method our unique existence as a Village permits us, is to raise our taxes. A peculiarity of this Village is that we have essentially no meaningful source of revenue except what we pay ourselves through ad valorem taxes and utility taxes. Well, as she already showed us, Watts doesn't want to raise taxes. She, and even moreso her pals Jacobs and Cooper, have cut the heart out of our system. If you want to know what happens to an organism once the heart is removed, ask Cooper. He says that for this kind of organism, it takes 10 years for it to happen.
So we're left with one other possibility: change the Village into something other than what it is and has always been. There appears to be pretty good agreement about that. All five Commissioners agree that we should introduce into the Village of Biscayne Park a commercial component, and commercial tax money. Ross and Anderson, and many others of us, find it convenient if that commercial component should happen to be someplace where we can't see it, literally across tracks. Assuming we can't raise taxes, for which very many of us, including the typical cheapskates, have argued. It seems all of us, except the pandering pedagogues, have made this argument.
But Watts, Jacobs, and possibly Cooper, have another idea. Let's invent a commercial component in the Village, our little, compact, residential-only Village, and we'll place it right next to Village Hall. Here's the analogy: you decide your house needs an additional bathroom. But you don't want to change the footprint of the structure, and installing a bathroom costs a lot of money. So you decide to eliminate in the kitchen sink. It all goes to the same place, for goodness' sake.
This is Watts', etc, idea. And if you want to know what our fiscal needs are, and what income stream this strip mall will produce, the proponents haven't the faintest idea. These are the advocates of special prudence, and lots of questions. Not this time, though.
So what, in fact, would "compel" Watts to rethink annexation? What would it take for her to reconsider her approach to this topic? One thing it would take is a broad view and perspective, and a devotion to that part of the Village that is beyond Watts' own house and bank account. It appears nobody's home on that approach. Other than that, who knows? Watts left a peculiar door open. Jacobs, in his arrogant, abusive way, tried to shut it back. Frankly, with the Bernard/Cooper/Jacobs/Watts wagons circled as tightly as they are, I doubt we're in any danger of encountering open-mindedness and thinking that is in the interest of the Village.
There are, by the way, perfectly good reasons not to want to annex. But those reasons have to entrain viable and rational alternatives. We're not given that here. We're given nothing but Cooper's death sentence (and some idiotic and half-baked idea about a strip mall). If that's the real goal for these neighbors, they owe us the honesty to say so.
Watts was the possible swing vote. This was one of those situations, as I described, where Ross and Anderson had voted yes, then Jacobs and Cooper voted no, at which point Jacobs looked at Watts and instructed her to vote with him and Cooper. Often enough, like then, she's a good girl and does what she's told, at least depending on who's instructing her.
So Watts registered her required vote against continuing the annexation exploration. But she didn't simply vote no, as Jacobs no doubt intended. She messed up the process by saying it would require something really "compelling" for her to vote to continue looking at annexation, and she indicated there were questions, the answers to which she didn't yet know. Oh, Barbara, Jacobs was no doubt thinking, can't you just speak when you're spoken to? I asked for your vote, not your thinking.
So the question is raised: what could possibly compel Barbara Watts to consider annexation? What questions does she wish answered? And to anticipate part of this discussion, Ross picked up on Watts' wish for information, and she offered answers to questions. But since Watts' little comment was part of a whole sentence that included her no vote, Jacobs pounced on the consensus he wanted. It was 3-2 against, and that's all he needed to know. No, no, no, he bludgeoned Ross, we have a vote, and we're done with this issue. If you want to see what ugly, infantile behavior, masquerading as a political discussion among chronological adults looks like, please come to Commission meetings. But hurry before the December election. The real show depends on having Jacobs in the Mayor's seat, and it's not clear that will continue to happen.
At any rate, back to the Watts question: what would compel her to consider annexation?
Annexation is mostly about revenue. It's about revenue we don't have. It's about revenue we can get by taking new territory. The questions are what do we want the money for, and can we get it any other way? And as a frame of reference, four of our Commissioners feel we need money. Ross and Anderson do, Jacobs says he knows we do, and Cooper frankly gives us a prognosis of 10 years to live. That's a bit more dire than the other three.
What would "compel" Watts to think we should look further into annexation? She's offered that we can place a little strip mall next to Village Hall, but she seems to have done that as a concession, not because she necessarily agrees we need the money. The fact that we live hand-to-mouth and have no reserve does not compel Watts to think we need a better source of revenue than we have. Watts does not appear to take a long view of anything, and she has no identifiable sense of perspective or proportion, so it is not clear the absence of a reserve means anything to her.
Watts takes a very limited and specific interest in our medians. She advocates for the Australian Pine. Other than that, she does not appear to know or care that the medians are poorly developed and minimally maintained. And to the extent that she can get her two Commission pals to join her in snatching small amounts of money out of the reserve we don't have to pay for maintenance of the menace Australian Pines, she does not appear to see this minor maintenance task as requiring more revenue than we have. The general condition of BP medians does not compel Watts to think we have a problem we should solve.
Our administrative buildings are in trouble. The log cabin and the police headquarters need significant renovation, and the police headquarters need to exist in a real building connected to the log cabin, not in a trailer. There is no possibility on earth that we can address any of that with our "budget." "Compelling" enough for Watts? Evidently not. Presumably, if asked, she would either say she doesn't agree this is a problem, or she would decide to let it be some future Commission's problem. As I said, no long view, no sense of perspective or proportion.
We need a new public address and recording system for our meetings. Funny enough, Watts speaks so softly and so fast that she is the best advertisement for why we need the upgrade. The fact that recordings are hard to hear is another reason. Watts was one of those who ran on the "sanctity of the public record" platform. The cost of an upgrade is about $10K, by some estimates. Forget it, we don't have it. Problem to Watts? Seems not. And increased lighting in the Village? Uh, I don't think so.
Watts is constantly looking out for others. She hates tax increases, because they squeeze taxpayers. So she thinks; so she's been told. She agreed to a millage of 9.7, but she refused to tax us at 9.75. The difference for the average homeowner is about $6.50 per year. Her own house is a bit more on the modest side, so maybe $3-$4 for her. But since she is so concerned about the finances of other people, she found it impossible to tax at that higher rate, the one that would have cost us about $6.50 a year more. She also resisted annexation of the territory in question, because it would increase the ad valorem property tax of those people over there. She's just looking out for their financial interests. But we pay all of our employees, except the manager and the police chief, at an embarrassingly low rate. These people, our police, our public works people, our administrative staff, are important to the Village, they work hard here, and they have expenses and families of their own. How is it Watts isn't concerned about them? And what about the people who don't receive any further income from us, because we fired them to save the money? Does Watts give them much thought?
Watts has a limited and strategic interest in public art. If our buying a piece of public art would help one of her friends, she wants it. If not, she's not interested. But we can't afford public art. She and her two Commission co-conspirators agreed to steal $2500 out of Village coffers to help pay for a mural, $2500 that was not specifically budgeted for public art and which therefore didn't exactly exist for that purpose. But we may not get the mural anyway, since we don't have the rest of the money, unless Watts, Jacobs, and Cooper decide to steal that, too. But does this problem compel Watts to think that perhaps we do after all need more revenue? No such evidence.
Nobody likes crime, and nobody likes noise. A barrier along the tracks would help solve both problems. This is a hugely expensive project that would take years and maybe decades to complete. It is not on our radar screen and barely in our fantasy life. Reason for Watts to think we should save, and increase revenues? Nope.
But suppose Watts agreed we could use a bit more money, or that she was willing to concede to all four of her colleagues who agree we are a sinking ship. Our easy, direct way of raising money, the only method our unique existence as a Village permits us, is to raise our taxes. A peculiarity of this Village is that we have essentially no meaningful source of revenue except what we pay ourselves through ad valorem taxes and utility taxes. Well, as she already showed us, Watts doesn't want to raise taxes. She, and even moreso her pals Jacobs and Cooper, have cut the heart out of our system. If you want to know what happens to an organism once the heart is removed, ask Cooper. He says that for this kind of organism, it takes 10 years for it to happen.
So we're left with one other possibility: change the Village into something other than what it is and has always been. There appears to be pretty good agreement about that. All five Commissioners agree that we should introduce into the Village of Biscayne Park a commercial component, and commercial tax money. Ross and Anderson, and many others of us, find it convenient if that commercial component should happen to be someplace where we can't see it, literally across tracks. Assuming we can't raise taxes, for which very many of us, including the typical cheapskates, have argued. It seems all of us, except the pandering pedagogues, have made this argument.
But Watts, Jacobs, and possibly Cooper, have another idea. Let's invent a commercial component in the Village, our little, compact, residential-only Village, and we'll place it right next to Village Hall. Here's the analogy: you decide your house needs an additional bathroom. But you don't want to change the footprint of the structure, and installing a bathroom costs a lot of money. So you decide to eliminate in the kitchen sink. It all goes to the same place, for goodness' sake.
This is Watts', etc, idea. And if you want to know what our fiscal needs are, and what income stream this strip mall will produce, the proponents haven't the faintest idea. These are the advocates of special prudence, and lots of questions. Not this time, though.
So what, in fact, would "compel" Watts to rethink annexation? What would it take for her to reconsider her approach to this topic? One thing it would take is a broad view and perspective, and a devotion to that part of the Village that is beyond Watts' own house and bank account. It appears nobody's home on that approach. Other than that, who knows? Watts left a peculiar door open. Jacobs, in his arrogant, abusive way, tried to shut it back. Frankly, with the Bernard/Cooper/Jacobs/Watts wagons circled as tightly as they are, I doubt we're in any danger of encountering open-mindedness and thinking that is in the interest of the Village.
There are, by the way, perfectly good reasons not to want to annex. But those reasons have to entrain viable and rational alternatives. We're not given that here. We're given nothing but Cooper's death sentence (and some idiotic and half-baked idea about a strip mall). If that's the real goal for these neighbors, they owe us the honesty to say so.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
About That Fence
The house in question is at 780 NE 119 Street. We've all been watching the house, because it was not in good repair for quite a while. The current owners bought it this year or late last year, and they have done a lot of work on it. It looks very nice now.
The lot is unusual, though it's not the only such lot in the Park. Because of the way the house is situated, the lot looks long and thin. The house is set way back, giving the impression that there must be no back yard at all. And it's a small-looking house, adding to the effect. The front yard was planted thick with lots of fruit trees. It appears some may be gone.
What the new owners wanted to do was create a barrier in front, so their dogs could run around. They seemed to say they had essentially no back yard. They wanted a picket fence in front. We then saw survey drawings and a photograph.
The drawing shows that there is in fact a back yard, 22 feet deep at its shallowest point and 32 feet deep at some other point. The front yard is very large, as we knew.
The photograph showed a fence seemingly just a few feet in front of the house.
My initial reaction, before I saw the drawing and the photograph, was that the owners probably really did need a fence, to contain the dogs, since there was no other room for them. But then it became clear they do have a back yard, seeming perhaps to obviate the need to make a front yard enclosure. Also, it wasn't clear where the owners imagined the dogs would run out front, since the fence was so close to the house that no real enclosure was created.
One person familiar with this development added a new insight. The fence was only close to the house for most of the front expanse, but it was 40 feet from the house along one side. It appears that the reason for the "bump out" on that side is to make room for the owners' RV, which is within the fenced area. So again, no room for dogs to run.
The meaning of this fence was getting increasingly ambiguous.
Furthermore, we were told the fence was erected "to Code," though without permits, and then part of it was shifted out front, to make room for the RV. That part, too, is said to be "to Code." But Code for fences includes anchoring of the posts so that it would be a major undertaking to move part of the fence. Or it would have been a major undertaking to have moved part of the fence. That's what we were told happened. This fact, I'm sorry to say, raises questions about whether the fence was really erected "to Code," whether it is permanent now, and perhaps even whether the homeowners own it, or are borrowing it to make some sort of statement or inroad. The questions were not asked, and I don't know the answers.
As a personal, subjective matter, I think the property looks nice with the fence (I don't mind fences, and I never did), and the part containing the RV is behind enough trees that you have to look carefully even to see it. My feeling, as a BP resident and someone who happens to live less than two blocks away, was that it would have made a very positive difference to the homeowners to have used the fence for the stated reasons. I was put off, however, by a few facts. One was the fact that there is, in actuality, a usable back yard, so the presentation seemed like a misrepresentation. The homeowners stated they preferred to let the dogs run out front, but this was a matter of preference, not a functional limitation of the property. That distinction is critically important in variances. The second thing that put me off was that the position of the fence so close to the house, and the presence of the RV, left little or no meaningful room for dogs to run, so again, I was unsure what the homeowners were really communicating, and what their real aim was. Finally, I resented that the fence had been erected seemingly as a ploy, since the homeowners had every reason to know perfectly well they couldn't put up a fence without a permit. The whole presentation left me feeling tricked. I do not, however, vote. Let me tell you about the people who do.
Bryan Cooper, for whatever reasons, loves picket fences. He also, for whatever reasons, hates government, rules, enforcement, and anything he identifies as "the man." So he was a reflex avid advocate for the homeowners. His position cannot be taken any more substantially or seriously than that. He voted to approve the application for the variance. He also, interestingly, advised the homeowners to leave the fence in place, even when the application was denied, on the hope that a new Commission after December 3 might look more favorably on it. He supported all the bad behavior of the homeowners, and encouraged them to break Village laws, in the interest of the fence that they want and he likes. Interests of the neighborhood? Not so much.
Bob Anderson is not, as far as I can guess, a front yard fence lover. If he is, I don't know about it. But much more to the point, he seemed at least as resentful as I was, and seemingly much more offended, that the homeowners manipulated this fence into place in what they had to know was a proscribed way. He voted to deny the application for the variance.
Noah Jacobs voted to allow the homeowners to have their fence. He shares anti-government, anti-rules, anti-enforcement leanings with Bryan. His advocacy, however, did not include a personal preference for fences, picket or otherwise. It was a less specific, less issue-driven, more provocative advocacy that was anarchic more than it was sensitive. His intellectualization of the moment had to do with the homeowners' having improved the property, so they should be rewarded by getting to have their way with the neighborhood and its rules.
Roxy Ross judged this purely and dispassionately by the book, as far as I could tell. The true need and hardship requirements weren't there, and so there was no indication to approve the variance.
Barbara Watts was rigidly against the fence. Barbara hates front yard fences. Barbara appeared barely to be listening, as is typical for her, and the answer was simply no.
So I think the Commission was right to deny the variance, and I think there was a combination of reasons for the denial. Importantly, the fact that the variance requirements were in actuality not met was prominent enough among those reasons. That being said, however, if the homeowners had made a more straightforward and honest-seeming application, I would love to have seen them get their fence. It just wasn't possible with our current Code and the requirements for variances.
The lot is unusual, though it's not the only such lot in the Park. Because of the way the house is situated, the lot looks long and thin. The house is set way back, giving the impression that there must be no back yard at all. And it's a small-looking house, adding to the effect. The front yard was planted thick with lots of fruit trees. It appears some may be gone.
What the new owners wanted to do was create a barrier in front, so their dogs could run around. They seemed to say they had essentially no back yard. They wanted a picket fence in front. We then saw survey drawings and a photograph.
The drawing shows that there is in fact a back yard, 22 feet deep at its shallowest point and 32 feet deep at some other point. The front yard is very large, as we knew.
The photograph showed a fence seemingly just a few feet in front of the house.
My initial reaction, before I saw the drawing and the photograph, was that the owners probably really did need a fence, to contain the dogs, since there was no other room for them. But then it became clear they do have a back yard, seeming perhaps to obviate the need to make a front yard enclosure. Also, it wasn't clear where the owners imagined the dogs would run out front, since the fence was so close to the house that no real enclosure was created.
One person familiar with this development added a new insight. The fence was only close to the house for most of the front expanse, but it was 40 feet from the house along one side. It appears that the reason for the "bump out" on that side is to make room for the owners' RV, which is within the fenced area. So again, no room for dogs to run.
The meaning of this fence was getting increasingly ambiguous.
Furthermore, we were told the fence was erected "to Code," though without permits, and then part of it was shifted out front, to make room for the RV. That part, too, is said to be "to Code." But Code for fences includes anchoring of the posts so that it would be a major undertaking to move part of the fence. Or it would have been a major undertaking to have moved part of the fence. That's what we were told happened. This fact, I'm sorry to say, raises questions about whether the fence was really erected "to Code," whether it is permanent now, and perhaps even whether the homeowners own it, or are borrowing it to make some sort of statement or inroad. The questions were not asked, and I don't know the answers.
As a personal, subjective matter, I think the property looks nice with the fence (I don't mind fences, and I never did), and the part containing the RV is behind enough trees that you have to look carefully even to see it. My feeling, as a BP resident and someone who happens to live less than two blocks away, was that it would have made a very positive difference to the homeowners to have used the fence for the stated reasons. I was put off, however, by a few facts. One was the fact that there is, in actuality, a usable back yard, so the presentation seemed like a misrepresentation. The homeowners stated they preferred to let the dogs run out front, but this was a matter of preference, not a functional limitation of the property. That distinction is critically important in variances. The second thing that put me off was that the position of the fence so close to the house, and the presence of the RV, left little or no meaningful room for dogs to run, so again, I was unsure what the homeowners were really communicating, and what their real aim was. Finally, I resented that the fence had been erected seemingly as a ploy, since the homeowners had every reason to know perfectly well they couldn't put up a fence without a permit. The whole presentation left me feeling tricked. I do not, however, vote. Let me tell you about the people who do.
Bryan Cooper, for whatever reasons, loves picket fences. He also, for whatever reasons, hates government, rules, enforcement, and anything he identifies as "the man." So he was a reflex avid advocate for the homeowners. His position cannot be taken any more substantially or seriously than that. He voted to approve the application for the variance. He also, interestingly, advised the homeowners to leave the fence in place, even when the application was denied, on the hope that a new Commission after December 3 might look more favorably on it. He supported all the bad behavior of the homeowners, and encouraged them to break Village laws, in the interest of the fence that they want and he likes. Interests of the neighborhood? Not so much.
Bob Anderson is not, as far as I can guess, a front yard fence lover. If he is, I don't know about it. But much more to the point, he seemed at least as resentful as I was, and seemingly much more offended, that the homeowners manipulated this fence into place in what they had to know was a proscribed way. He voted to deny the application for the variance.
Noah Jacobs voted to allow the homeowners to have their fence. He shares anti-government, anti-rules, anti-enforcement leanings with Bryan. His advocacy, however, did not include a personal preference for fences, picket or otherwise. It was a less specific, less issue-driven, more provocative advocacy that was anarchic more than it was sensitive. His intellectualization of the moment had to do with the homeowners' having improved the property, so they should be rewarded by getting to have their way with the neighborhood and its rules.
Roxy Ross judged this purely and dispassionately by the book, as far as I could tell. The true need and hardship requirements weren't there, and so there was no indication to approve the variance.
Barbara Watts was rigidly against the fence. Barbara hates front yard fences. Barbara appeared barely to be listening, as is typical for her, and the answer was simply no.
So I think the Commission was right to deny the variance, and I think there was a combination of reasons for the denial. Importantly, the fact that the variance requirements were in actuality not met was prominent enough among those reasons. That being said, however, if the homeowners had made a more straightforward and honest-seeming application, I would love to have seen them get their fence. It just wasn't possible with our current Code and the requirements for variances.