My central aim is to keep the Village alive and thriving. This is essential. I like where and how I live, we all like our neighborhood, and keeping it the way it is, or improving it, takes our being independent. We must call our own shots.
We need better fiscal support. We could raise taxes as high as is necessary, but few have much enthusiasm for super-taxes. And even if we decided it was the best thing for us to do, we could not plan a future that way, because future Commissions and residents might not agree. It's unstable. It also depends on healthy and endlessly increasing property values, and we've already seen how unstable that is.
Grants are good, and they're valuable. They're also not easy to come by, they're very specific, they're not repeating, and they typically require us to match them. And, given the right, or the wrong, Governor, the plug can get pulled just when we think we have one of these grants, as we have recently seen. We cannot plan a future on the hope of living off grants.
We have economized valiantly. We have no meaningful fat in the budget. In that we are already unable to meet our responsibilities as a municipality, it makes little sense to try to confront our fiscal problems by seeing if we can do even less.
We very simply need more income. We need to stabilize our budget, we need to preserve what's great about Biscayne Park, and we need to improve. All of that takes money the Village does not now have. Our best opportunity to reinvent ourselves is presented by the possibility of annexing. We must explore and pursue this possibility. Every relevant professional and knowledgeable person who has crossed our path has told us that. If, as the ante is raised, we are reassured that annexation is a good and workable idea for us, we have to do it. If we find out it will not do for us what we need it to do, we have to "know when to fold 'em" and walk away. We cannot answer the questions without being part of the process.
There is no sense in trying to create our own tiny commercial component next to the log cabin. First of all, such a plan directly defies the reasons some of us don't want to annex something else. It very materially and considerably changes the Park in exactly the direction annexation opponents do not want to go. Second, those opponents also criticize the primary annexation plan, because of what they describe as inadequate information. There is absolutely no information as to what could possibly be expected from the construction of a small office and storefront building, and no reason at all to think it would produce remotely meaningful income for the Village. Third, such a scheme aggravates the traffic problem of which annexation opponents complain.
The question is, what if we cannot annex. The answer is that we may be sunk, or it may be that we will have to try a very different approach to saving ourselves. If, as some suggest, we had to rely on unusually high property values to produce more substantial revenues, then we would have to do something to raise value. And there's no reason we shouldn't do that anyway.
To improve ourselves this way, we must improve and enhance the condition of the neighborhood. We need to improve, through development and furnishing, our public spaces. Dan Keys and Parks and Parkways have begun some of this, with the landscaping improvements around our entrance sign and at the entrance to the recreation center building. We need more. We need first rate medians. We need all our public spaces to be impressive.
We also need individual private properties to be brought up to appropriate and respectable condition. We need Codes that permit our neighbors to keep properties in a way that fulfills them, while respecting all of us and the style and standard of the neighborhood we share. And we need strict adherence to those Codes. We need our Boards and our Commissions to unite in raising the standard of the neighborhood so that it's a credit to all of us and a place we can all be proud of.
This raises the further problem of gradual alienation of Park residents. Ironically it is those residents and neighbors who have been most active and most devoted who are being most alienated. We need to welcome and enable resident/neighbor participation, not deflect and frustrate it. In my Commission campaign, I have met BP residents who are clamoring to participate and to help out, while Board seats sit empty, and some Commissioners refuse to fill them and instead talk about minimizing or suspending the Boards. This is an inclusive neighborhood. We need to engage the eager, resourceful, and dedicated. We need to help stragglers and marginal neighbors, not create more of them.
Our signature log cabin needs action. In my opinion, the preferred action is to renovate it. It can serve as the seat of Village functioning, including, as in years past, hosting our meetings. It also needs expansion, so that it can house all municipal and administrative functions, including the Biscayne Park Police. All it takes is what we do not now have: money. We can get money by raising taxes, assessing ourselves, or annexing other tracts. But we must find the money. I'm not afraid, and I do not surrender.
With an outdoor sculpture and a mural now owned and proudly displayed by the Village, and another sculpture awaiting delivery, we have every reason to expand a real public art program. I strongly advocate for a program like this. It brings class, self-respect, and broad enrichment to municipalities. And I pledge never to take Village money for such a program without a clear consensus that this is what residents want to do with their taxes.
We should continue to consider whether there may be real and substantial value to erecting a wall along the train track. Construction like that would no doubt be very expensive, but it may be very worthwhile, to increase quality of life for our neighbors who live along the track and for all of us. Improved quality of life increases the commitment, dedication, and investment of property owners, which increases the condition of properties, which increases value as well as comfort. This is what we want.
We have a wonderful Village. We have some great neighbors. For as long as we want to promote and encourage it, we happen to have the best police department in the state. If we thought our police accomplishment was due to Mitch Glansberg, or Ana Garcia, or Ray Atesiano, two of them no longer work here, and the other will eventually retire, or get lured away by someone else. The individuals won't stay forever, but our commitment can.
We just need to take a deep breath, and develop vision and the courage to pursue it. That's my plan.
"For the Best We Can Be."
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Thursday, November 28, 2013
New Math
It appears agreed that the Village is in fiscal trouble. We spend more than we make, and/or we do not have enough money to pay for the kinds of things a successful municipality must do. Various people have described this problem in various ways, and a range of suggestions have been made to correct it. At most dire, some feel either that the municipality will become defunct in up to 10 years, or that it will be annexed, presumably either by North Miami or by Miami Shores. Neither of those municipalities, by the way, has any reason to want to absorb the erstwhile Village of Biscayne park. We would be the same fiscal problem to them that we are to ourselves.
Standard approaches to our problem have included solutions like raising taxes, economizing more, and annexing some other tract of land and land use. Each one makes a certain kind of sense, with some being a bit more sensible, or workable, than others.
But very recently, I heard two other approaches. They are creative, unusual, and perhaps even counter-intuitive. I always like thinking "outside the box," so approaches like these grab my attention.
The first of these approaches was suggested by Noah Jacobs. Noah, by the way, is one of those people who says he recognizes that we are in fiscal trouble. His recommendation was summarized at the special Commission meeting to negotiate salary and benefits with our new Manager. There were actually two orders of business at that meeting. The second was the Manager's contract, and the first was acceptance of the ad valorem tax rate and the coming year budget. Noah had two proposals. One was an objection to the tax rate and budget (he voted against both of them), and he reminded us of his wish for lower taxes. The other was persistently, at each and every instance, to advocate in favor of any salary or benefit concession the new Manager requested. So Noah's solution to the Village's fiscal problem, the problem that can be summarized as the Village's spending more than it makes, was to have it make less and spend more. I told you this might seem counter-intuitive.
The other approach was shared by someone who brings fresh eyes to our problem. Manny Espinoza is a very new BP resident. He's been here for about 13 months now. But he's fallen in love with the Park already, and he decided that he should be a Commissioner by now. He already identified one problem, which was that the P&Z Board and the Commission did not think he should have a fence in front of his house. It may even be that he will, in time, discover other imperfections. But the present issue is that it just so happens that Manny is an accountant. Manny informed us at the candidates' forum that in that he is an accountant, once he takes office, money will simply appear. He didn't use the term "magic wand," but that was the sense I got in listening to him. Or maybe he just meant that he is a devotee of "creative accounting."
So those of us who look at fiscal situations, and address them with standard addition and subtraction, may have it all wrong. We may be suffering from lack of creativity, or the confinement of conventional thinking. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" theory was intended to suggest that capitalist systems find their own homeostases and thereby regulate themselves. The "invisible hand" theory "on crack" may suggest the possibility of entirely alternative realities, where amplifying deficits somehow resolves them, or money grows on trees or falls from the sky.
Standard approaches to our problem have included solutions like raising taxes, economizing more, and annexing some other tract of land and land use. Each one makes a certain kind of sense, with some being a bit more sensible, or workable, than others.
But very recently, I heard two other approaches. They are creative, unusual, and perhaps even counter-intuitive. I always like thinking "outside the box," so approaches like these grab my attention.
The first of these approaches was suggested by Noah Jacobs. Noah, by the way, is one of those people who says he recognizes that we are in fiscal trouble. His recommendation was summarized at the special Commission meeting to negotiate salary and benefits with our new Manager. There were actually two orders of business at that meeting. The second was the Manager's contract, and the first was acceptance of the ad valorem tax rate and the coming year budget. Noah had two proposals. One was an objection to the tax rate and budget (he voted against both of them), and he reminded us of his wish for lower taxes. The other was persistently, at each and every instance, to advocate in favor of any salary or benefit concession the new Manager requested. So Noah's solution to the Village's fiscal problem, the problem that can be summarized as the Village's spending more than it makes, was to have it make less and spend more. I told you this might seem counter-intuitive.
The other approach was shared by someone who brings fresh eyes to our problem. Manny Espinoza is a very new BP resident. He's been here for about 13 months now. But he's fallen in love with the Park already, and he decided that he should be a Commissioner by now. He already identified one problem, which was that the P&Z Board and the Commission did not think he should have a fence in front of his house. It may even be that he will, in time, discover other imperfections. But the present issue is that it just so happens that Manny is an accountant. Manny informed us at the candidates' forum that in that he is an accountant, once he takes office, money will simply appear. He didn't use the term "magic wand," but that was the sense I got in listening to him. Or maybe he just meant that he is a devotee of "creative accounting."
So those of us who look at fiscal situations, and address them with standard addition and subtraction, may have it all wrong. We may be suffering from lack of creativity, or the confinement of conventional thinking. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" theory was intended to suggest that capitalist systems find their own homeostases and thereby regulate themselves. The "invisible hand" theory "on crack" may suggest the possibility of entirely alternative realities, where amplifying deficits somehow resolves them, or money grows on trees or falls from the sky.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
biscayneparkshame@yahoo.com
Today, the third installment of "biscayneparkpride@yahoo.com" was sent to some collection of people. This one was like the first one, in that it was not fact-based. In fact, there was not one correct assertion in the whole letter. It was different from the other two, however, in that it was signed. The person who sent it was Kelvyn Whitfield, and he included his street address, instead of the impersonation of the Village address that was listed on the other two mailings. Like the other two, this one was sent not directly, but through "ConstantContact."
I went to see Kelvyn at his house this morning. I asked him about the letter he sent out, but he said he didn't want to talk about it. He did acknowledge having sent it. I pointed out to him that not one of the assertions contained in his letter was true. He said he considered them all to be true. I reminded him that he almost never appears at Commission meetings, making it unlikely that he would know what happens there, but he said he sometimes watches them, presumably on Comcast. When I persevered, and told him that the things he claimed were true and happened were not true and did not happen, he said it was not possible for anyone to check facts about someone else. I disagreed, and I offered to show him proof of what was actually true. He wasn't interested, he "didn't care," and he said he accepted it as his mission to save the Village from poor Commissioners. I pointed out that I am not a Commissioner and am therefore not to blame for whatever are his complaints about the Commission. He fell silent.
Recognizing that Kelvyn could not be relying on anything he personally witnessed or knew, and further recognizing that the material he sent out was eerily similar to the complaints of certain other people, I suggested to Kelvyn that perhaps he was relying on what someone else told him. I wondered who that someone might be. "I don't have to tell you," countered Kelvyn. True enough. And for what it's worth, Kelvyn pointed out to me today that he is "not a child."
The other interesting fact about my conversation with Kelvyn today is that apparently, if what Kelvyn says is true, he did not receive the other two biscayneparkpride/ConstantContact letters. He has not previously been included in this campaign. Thus, it appears someone has come to Kelvyn, presumably provided him with something to circulate, and told him it was now his turn. Clearly, he doesn't know anything about any of this, including the contents of the letter he signed.
Let's all await the election eve drive-by anonymous bill of accusations, not to mention more installments in the biscayneparkpride@yahoo.com/ConstantContact series. (Interestingly, biscayneparkpride has been decommissioned by yahoo, so it's unclear how it was used to send out today's missive.) It's beginning to look like it will be about Roxy Ross and me this year, or perhaps, if we can take Kelvyn as an indication, the "Jonas-Ross Ticket," whatever that is.
I went to see Kelvyn at his house this morning. I asked him about the letter he sent out, but he said he didn't want to talk about it. He did acknowledge having sent it. I pointed out to him that not one of the assertions contained in his letter was true. He said he considered them all to be true. I reminded him that he almost never appears at Commission meetings, making it unlikely that he would know what happens there, but he said he sometimes watches them, presumably on Comcast. When I persevered, and told him that the things he claimed were true and happened were not true and did not happen, he said it was not possible for anyone to check facts about someone else. I disagreed, and I offered to show him proof of what was actually true. He wasn't interested, he "didn't care," and he said he accepted it as his mission to save the Village from poor Commissioners. I pointed out that I am not a Commissioner and am therefore not to blame for whatever are his complaints about the Commission. He fell silent.
Recognizing that Kelvyn could not be relying on anything he personally witnessed or knew, and further recognizing that the material he sent out was eerily similar to the complaints of certain other people, I suggested to Kelvyn that perhaps he was relying on what someone else told him. I wondered who that someone might be. "I don't have to tell you," countered Kelvyn. True enough. And for what it's worth, Kelvyn pointed out to me today that he is "not a child."
The other interesting fact about my conversation with Kelvyn today is that apparently, if what Kelvyn says is true, he did not receive the other two biscayneparkpride/ConstantContact letters. He has not previously been included in this campaign. Thus, it appears someone has come to Kelvyn, presumably provided him with something to circulate, and told him it was now his turn. Clearly, he doesn't know anything about any of this, including the contents of the letter he signed.
Let's all await the election eve drive-by anonymous bill of accusations, not to mention more installments in the biscayneparkpride@yahoo.com/ConstantContact series. (Interestingly, biscayneparkpride has been decommissioned by yahoo, so it's unclear how it was used to send out today's missive.) It's beginning to look like it will be about Roxy Ross and me this year, or perhaps, if we can take Kelvyn as an indication, the "Jonas-Ross Ticket," whatever that is.
Monday, November 25, 2013
Can I Interest You in a Piece of Public Sculpture?
Persistent? Incorrigible? Suit yourself. If there's a problem, tell me what it is. One Commission agreed to accept a gift of public sculpture for the Village, and a very different Commission agreed to accept another. Now, I'm on the trail of a third, which I'll come to shortly.
For an important piece of perspective about what probably appears to be my project, between the first piece and the second, Gage Hartung suggested a sculptor of whom I had not known. I found the sculptor, and I met with him. He was a very interesting guy, and his sculptures were magnificent. They were also very pricey. So much so that there was no chance we (a few donors) could raise that kind of money. So it was a great idea, but I couldn't make it work. As I was wrapping up raising funds for the second sculpture, David Tunnell said he preferred something more "organic" for the Village. His image was something maybe made of stone, with a rounded contour and an abstract representation. I don't know of such pieces, and I asked David to find one, or to help me find one. He did not get back to me. So I can understand why it seems like I'm driving this bus, but I'm going to plead not guilty. I would be more than delighted to have someone else take over the choosing and the fund-raising.
Cecilia Lueza painted our new mural at the recreation center. If you go to her website, lueza.com, you will see other murals she has painted. You will also see paintings intended for indoors. And you will see outdoor sculptures. As it happens, I saw a series of her sculptures last year at Art Miami (the design district/Wynwood branch of Art Basel). I didn't know they were hers, and I had never heard of her before. They were very captivating pieces, however, and I recognized them instantly when I saw her site. They are the series of three face profiles. Now that I've seen her site, I can say they are not at all the only pieces I think would be great in BP.
Here's an example of what I have in mind. I've spoken to Cecilia about this, and she's offered us a discount.
The sizes and materials are 8 feet aluminum, 11 feet aluminum, 10 feet aluminum and urethane, 8 feet aluminum and urethane, over 8 feet aluminum and urethane, and 9 feet aluminum, steel, and urethane.
These are not easy, although $5000, the price for the third one down, is what we paid for the second sculpture we got. So not out of sight for "Ascending." My favorites are the two "Diversity," or triple faces, series. The "Tower of Seasons," the ones with the colored circular discs, are appealing, and the shorter one may be accessible, cost-wise. I like "Dual Nature," the multi-colored head, very much, but it's expensive for us. Cecilia has more. These are just the ones I liked best. Go to her site, and see if something else appeals to you.
When I ask "Can I Interest You..." I mean would you contribute to paying for these. I have every reason to assume the fund-raising for another sculpture would be the same as it was for the other two pieces. As you know, I'm running for Commissioner, and I will promise you I would never make a move against the Village coffers to pay for something like this. What I absolutely would do is canvass the neighborhood and the Commission, and place the matter on an agenda, or better yet, a workshop, to see if BP residents would like to pay a yearly assessment for public art. Just to remind you, it would cost about $1.66 (that's one dollar and sixty-six cents) per person in BP to collect enough money to buy a $5000 piece of art. For a $10K piece, it's about $3.35 per person. Once, or once a year. So we're talking about meaningless amounts of money. If we wanted to skip the concept of counting heads, and just go to households, we could call it $5-$10 per house, and we collect about $6K-$12K. If we got really ambitious, and collected $20 per house, we would have a very nice public art program pretty quickly.
So let me know what you think. Do you like the idea? Do you happen to like these pieces? Do you like the idea, but you have some other pieces in mind? Tell me about them, and where they are, and how much we would have to pay for them. I'll go inquire, or haggle. Or you do it, and tell me how I can help.
Friday, November 22, 2013
A Very Bad Sign.
My day started with a call from a supporter who had accepted one of my yard signs. She left me a message to say that it seems the wind or the rain must have blown my yard sign away. The wire stand was still in the ground, but the sign was gone. The sign from one of my competitors, Manny Espinoza, must have been sturdier. It was still there. Furthermore, my supporter observed, a yard sign for Roxy Ross, which had been across the street, was also gone. Elsewhere on 119th Street, not far from where my supporter lives, signs for Roxy and David Coviello, were gone. Only a sign for Manny Espinoza remained. A block away, at 119th and 9th, Roxy Ross' sign and my sign were gone, and only Noah Jacobs' remained.
Last Sunday, I replaced a sign on 111th Street. By Monday, a day later, the replacement was gone.
Today, Noah Jacobs sent around a plea for assistance from whoever is on his circulation list. He wants "walkers and talkers," and he adds that he's "being accused of things [he's] never done nor would [he] do." Without his supporters' help, he pleads or admonishes, Biscayne Park "will end up with Commissioners that none of us want."
Among candidates Noah would like to accuse of something or other, there is probably no one as outspoken as I am. I have never said an out of the way or criticizing word about Noah during my campaigning, nor would I, nor do any of the others, as best I can tell. We all have enough to do to explain our own positions about the issues. No one asks me about other candidates, and I don't discuss them, either to criticize them or to praise or support them.
So either people are inexplicably telling Noah something that is in no way true, or Noah is telling his circulation list, and anyone else who reads what he writes, something that is in no way true.
As for the Village ending up with Commissioners Noah deems unwanted by any BP residents, could I take the liberty to suggest that that is Noah's distorted and self-serving opinion? Is it possible that Noah is so frantic that he resorts to this kind of misrepresentation because the Village already has some Commissioners people don't want? The fact is, everyone running for office feels he or she is more desirable, or has more to offer, than others running. Why else would anyone run? Is it really necessary to try to whip people into a frenzy of antipathy toward unnamed evil-doers, just to make the case that one should be elected, or re-elected? Is Noah's best argument for why people should vote for him that his competition is toxic to the neighborhood, or at least that no one would want them? And is he having to tell people that they don't want his competition, because he thinks people are too stupid to decide that for themselves?
I can't help but think back to Gaspar Gonzalez's column, in which he wrote about the friendliness and the spirit of cooperation and single-mindedness of purpose of BP residents. He said it was the reason he chose to live here. Or the argument made by Barbara Watts and Steve Bernard, as to why we shouldn't have combined the BP election with the general election: it would take that small town, quaint, friendly feeling out of the campaign and election process.
It appears Noah isn't in line with me, with most of the other candidates, with Gaspar, with Barbara, with Steve, or perhaps with anyone. He seems to be cultivating a rogue position from which he resorts to anything and takes swipes at anyone. Maybe at everyone. He never tells us who he believes, or alleges, "accused [him] of things." I'm reminded of Noah himself, too, and his comment about being nothing more than reactive. There is no agenda, no purpose, only reaction. Friendliness? Spirit of cooperation? No, I wouldn't think so. More like pervasive disdain, divisiveness, underhandedness, and dishonesty.
I guess it's going to be a long week and a half until the election.
Last Sunday, I replaced a sign on 111th Street. By Monday, a day later, the replacement was gone.
Today, Noah Jacobs sent around a plea for assistance from whoever is on his circulation list. He wants "walkers and talkers," and he adds that he's "being accused of things [he's] never done nor would [he] do." Without his supporters' help, he pleads or admonishes, Biscayne Park "will end up with Commissioners that none of us want."
Among candidates Noah would like to accuse of something or other, there is probably no one as outspoken as I am. I have never said an out of the way or criticizing word about Noah during my campaigning, nor would I, nor do any of the others, as best I can tell. We all have enough to do to explain our own positions about the issues. No one asks me about other candidates, and I don't discuss them, either to criticize them or to praise or support them.
So either people are inexplicably telling Noah something that is in no way true, or Noah is telling his circulation list, and anyone else who reads what he writes, something that is in no way true.
As for the Village ending up with Commissioners Noah deems unwanted by any BP residents, could I take the liberty to suggest that that is Noah's distorted and self-serving opinion? Is it possible that Noah is so frantic that he resorts to this kind of misrepresentation because the Village already has some Commissioners people don't want? The fact is, everyone running for office feels he or she is more desirable, or has more to offer, than others running. Why else would anyone run? Is it really necessary to try to whip people into a frenzy of antipathy toward unnamed evil-doers, just to make the case that one should be elected, or re-elected? Is Noah's best argument for why people should vote for him that his competition is toxic to the neighborhood, or at least that no one would want them? And is he having to tell people that they don't want his competition, because he thinks people are too stupid to decide that for themselves?
I can't help but think back to Gaspar Gonzalez's column, in which he wrote about the friendliness and the spirit of cooperation and single-mindedness of purpose of BP residents. He said it was the reason he chose to live here. Or the argument made by Barbara Watts and Steve Bernard, as to why we shouldn't have combined the BP election with the general election: it would take that small town, quaint, friendly feeling out of the campaign and election process.
It appears Noah isn't in line with me, with most of the other candidates, with Gaspar, with Barbara, with Steve, or perhaps with anyone. He seems to be cultivating a rogue position from which he resorts to anything and takes swipes at anyone. Maybe at everyone. He never tells us who he believes, or alleges, "accused [him] of things." I'm reminded of Noah himself, too, and his comment about being nothing more than reactive. There is no agenda, no purpose, only reaction. Friendliness? Spirit of cooperation? No, I wouldn't think so. More like pervasive disdain, divisiveness, underhandedness, and dishonesty.
I guess it's going to be a long week and a half until the election.
Happy Anniversary, More or Less
I don't know how or if BP residents celebrated the 25th and 50th anniversaries of the Village. In 1958, the year of the 25th anniversary, men wore suits and slicked their hair, women wore dresses and high-heeled shoes and had their hair done, very many people smoked, and celebrations of many things had a formal tone to them. I remember my own parents' involvement in outings like these. I'm imagining a cocktail party, at least, if not a full banquet.
In 1983, the year of the 50th anniversary, people still enjoyed celebratory get-togethers. In the Village, there was a vibrant garden club. My first BP next door neighbor, Lois Roberts, had been very active in the garden club. There was also an active sense of community here. I can only imagine there must have been some eager marking of the BP "half century." On the other hand, I have asked two families who lived here in 1983. One imagines he might have been at the 50th, if there was one (he doesn't remember), and he wonders if that was the time Ed Burke rode down the street on an elephant. The other family doesn't remember any celebration of the 50th and suspects there wasn't one.
I moved here in 2005, and the 75th anniversary was in 2008. The "party" was held at the Miami Shores Country Club and included a dinner, a lecture on local history, and a floor show. We all dressed up, and the event doubled as a fund-raiser for the Village. The program was devised and planned by a group of BP residents who worked for months on it. One of the planners was the then Mayor.
It's not clear why an 80th anniversary event was planned. Some BPers say they think an 80th anniversary is not worthy of much fanfare. Maybe others just like to celebrate: if we like to party, who cares what the excuse is? Planning was executed by the team of Candido Sosa-Cruz and Barbara Watts, who relied on historical interest grants for all funding.
The plan for the celebration became informal. The date, a Friday, instead of the Saturday we might have expected, conflicted with an intended Food and Tunes, which turned out to be symbolic. The 80th anniversary schedule much more closely resembled a glorified Food and Tunes itself than it did a gala. Added were the presentation of a mural, an event partially tainted by a faulty process, a lecture presented by a different historian than five years ago (very lively and well-received), a concert by a symphonic band from North Miami, and a flag football game the next day, contested by our PW/Recreation staff and our police. Vendors sold arts and crafts both days. Two vendors, our own David Blake and Tim Tierney, sold comestibles. David is marketing specialty coffee and chocolate, and Tim is selling pickled produce he prepared himself. (Both were very good.)
The Saturday chapter of the 80th anniversary celebration was essentially rained out. No one's fault, but also symbolic never-the-less.
Maybe the event-planning suffered from the decision not to involve the people who care, or theoretically would care, the most: BP residents. During the most recent similar opportunity, BPers wanted something more upscale. Maybe, as some BP residents have said, the 80th anniversary simply did not carry the emotional impact to make it worthy of much hullabaloo. Whatever attracted people, or would have attracted them, it was a nice evening. The lecture was a nice feature, the band was very good, and if you like food truck food, you ate adequately.
The 80th anniversary celebration seems either to have been too little or too much. Either it deserved more elaborate planning and greater pomp, or it was an exaggerated response to a minor marker. The other possibility, that few of us might want to consider, is that it was just right. As with a person, an 80th birthday is well worth noting, because of the decreasing likelihood of more birthdays, or of many more of them. At that age, we take what we can get. The same is being said of Biscayne Park. Lifespan numbers have been mentioned lately. Ten more years to live. Maybe less than 10. If that's what's ahead of us, sure, we'll seize the 80th. Maybe we should make a plan for an 81st.
In 1983, the year of the 50th anniversary, people still enjoyed celebratory get-togethers. In the Village, there was a vibrant garden club. My first BP next door neighbor, Lois Roberts, had been very active in the garden club. There was also an active sense of community here. I can only imagine there must have been some eager marking of the BP "half century." On the other hand, I have asked two families who lived here in 1983. One imagines he might have been at the 50th, if there was one (he doesn't remember), and he wonders if that was the time Ed Burke rode down the street on an elephant. The other family doesn't remember any celebration of the 50th and suspects there wasn't one.
I moved here in 2005, and the 75th anniversary was in 2008. The "party" was held at the Miami Shores Country Club and included a dinner, a lecture on local history, and a floor show. We all dressed up, and the event doubled as a fund-raiser for the Village. The program was devised and planned by a group of BP residents who worked for months on it. One of the planners was the then Mayor.
It's not clear why an 80th anniversary event was planned. Some BPers say they think an 80th anniversary is not worthy of much fanfare. Maybe others just like to celebrate: if we like to party, who cares what the excuse is? Planning was executed by the team of Candido Sosa-Cruz and Barbara Watts, who relied on historical interest grants for all funding.
The plan for the celebration became informal. The date, a Friday, instead of the Saturday we might have expected, conflicted with an intended Food and Tunes, which turned out to be symbolic. The 80th anniversary schedule much more closely resembled a glorified Food and Tunes itself than it did a gala. Added were the presentation of a mural, an event partially tainted by a faulty process, a lecture presented by a different historian than five years ago (very lively and well-received), a concert by a symphonic band from North Miami, and a flag football game the next day, contested by our PW/Recreation staff and our police. Vendors sold arts and crafts both days. Two vendors, our own David Blake and Tim Tierney, sold comestibles. David is marketing specialty coffee and chocolate, and Tim is selling pickled produce he prepared himself. (Both were very good.)
The Saturday chapter of the 80th anniversary celebration was essentially rained out. No one's fault, but also symbolic never-the-less.
Maybe the event-planning suffered from the decision not to involve the people who care, or theoretically would care, the most: BP residents. During the most recent similar opportunity, BPers wanted something more upscale. Maybe, as some BP residents have said, the 80th anniversary simply did not carry the emotional impact to make it worthy of much hullabaloo. Whatever attracted people, or would have attracted them, it was a nice evening. The lecture was a nice feature, the band was very good, and if you like food truck food, you ate adequately.
The 80th anniversary celebration seems either to have been too little or too much. Either it deserved more elaborate planning and greater pomp, or it was an exaggerated response to a minor marker. The other possibility, that few of us might want to consider, is that it was just right. As with a person, an 80th birthday is well worth noting, because of the decreasing likelihood of more birthdays, or of many more of them. At that age, we take what we can get. The same is being said of Biscayne Park. Lifespan numbers have been mentioned lately. Ten more years to live. Maybe less than 10. If that's what's ahead of us, sure, we'll seize the 80th. Maybe we should make a plan for an 81st.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Mural, Mural, on the Wall. A Saga in Two Parts: Part III
I like it. It's peaceful, and it depicts some of our local birds. It was nicely done. It's not at all imposing, and I think the people who will see it the most, especially including the people who live across from it, will be pleased it's there. Presumably, we'll hear more, including from them, over time.
The mural cost the Village coffers $2000, and that little only because of $500 in private donations from residents. The last complaint about this was at the Wednesday night, 11/20/13, Commission meeting. Two of the three Commissioners who raided the Village coffers to pay for the mural, over the unanimous objection of Village residents who expressed themselves, weren't at the meeting, which was for the insignificant purpose of negotiating a contract with our new manager. What Commissioner would bother to attend a meeting as unimportant as that? Well, Ross and Anderson did. And Jacobs came a few minutes late. So at least there was a quorum. In fact, a quorum was all there was.
I had a mural painted at my house, on a wall no one can see unless they're at my house, and they stand on the deck in back of the house. My mural is much more elaborate, much more detailed, much more complicated, and possibly larger in square feet than the mural at the recreation center. The muralist charged me $1000. But then again, I didn't say in advance that I had a $5000 budget.
Our mural, the Village's mural at the recreation center, will be unveiled on Friday, November 22, at the 80th anniversary event. Festivities start at 6:00 PM. The official unveiling is at 6:30. If you can stay later, you'll hear a lecture on the history of Biscayne Park at 7:00 and a band concert at 8:00. Come by and see the mural. I do think you'll like it.
PS: Here's a question I didn't ask. Three Commissioners, Watts, Jacobs, and Cooper, agreed to take most of the cost of the mural from the Village coffers. This was over the vigorous and persistent objection of every BP resident who voiced an opinion about it. These three Commissioners were willing to raid the Village coffers and take the entire $2500. They didn't have to take quite that much, because of private donations totaling about $500. So the question is, did these three Commissioners have the decency, respect, and consideration to put their money where their mouths were? Did they themselves contribute privately? How much did each contribute to the mural? They did, after all, take our tax money, when we kept pleading with them not to. Were they at least honorable enough to lighten the load they insisted upon placing on the Village?
The mural cost the Village coffers $2000, and that little only because of $500 in private donations from residents. The last complaint about this was at the Wednesday night, 11/20/13, Commission meeting. Two of the three Commissioners who raided the Village coffers to pay for the mural, over the unanimous objection of Village residents who expressed themselves, weren't at the meeting, which was for the insignificant purpose of negotiating a contract with our new manager. What Commissioner would bother to attend a meeting as unimportant as that? Well, Ross and Anderson did. And Jacobs came a few minutes late. So at least there was a quorum. In fact, a quorum was all there was.
I had a mural painted at my house, on a wall no one can see unless they're at my house, and they stand on the deck in back of the house. My mural is much more elaborate, much more detailed, much more complicated, and possibly larger in square feet than the mural at the recreation center. The muralist charged me $1000. But then again, I didn't say in advance that I had a $5000 budget.
Our mural, the Village's mural at the recreation center, will be unveiled on Friday, November 22, at the 80th anniversary event. Festivities start at 6:00 PM. The official unveiling is at 6:30. If you can stay later, you'll hear a lecture on the history of Biscayne Park at 7:00 and a band concert at 8:00. Come by and see the mural. I do think you'll like it.
PS: Here's a question I didn't ask. Three Commissioners, Watts, Jacobs, and Cooper, agreed to take most of the cost of the mural from the Village coffers. This was over the vigorous and persistent objection of every BP resident who voiced an opinion about it. These three Commissioners were willing to raid the Village coffers and take the entire $2500. They didn't have to take quite that much, because of private donations totaling about $500. So the question is, did these three Commissioners have the decency, respect, and consideration to put their money where their mouths were? Did they themselves contribute privately? How much did each contribute to the mural? They did, after all, take our tax money, when we kept pleading with them not to. Were they at least honorable enough to lighten the load they insisted upon placing on the Village?
It's Starting Already? It's Going to Be One of Those Fortnights.
One of our sadder BP election traditions is the election eve drive-by screed. It's on one or both sides of a piece of paper typed and photocopied for all of us, and it's unsigned. It features a spate of allegations, usually of nefarious and scandalous "facts" about the candidate referenced.
The two distinguishing features of this communication are that it is anonymous, and that it is presented at a time when the victim cannot address any of the allegations: the night before the election. In this sense, it is both cowardly (and illegal, interestingly enough) and underhanded. I have also never seen one of these in which I had confidence the assertions were true.
I fully expect to be the subject/victim of one of these myself this year. I doubt anyone will allege that I am a drug addict, child molester, or former embezzler, but I would expect, based on the kind of material typically presented, and the bent of the person who I think is behind these, some quotes from this blog. The fact is, I was going to mention to you just before the election that you should expect this screed, and you should consider 1) that it is unattributed/unsigned, and 2) that it is strategically circulated at a time that it cannot be responded to. So take it for what it appears to be worth, and the fact that whoever initiates it does not have the courage, honesty, and decency to tell you who he or she is.
But this year, we apparently have a variation on the theme, as they say. This year, there is an e-mail circulation (I'm not sure how wide the circulation was-- two people sent it to me) about Roxy Ross and an anti-bullying Resolution. The e-mail says that Roxy Ross "doesn't seem to comprehend the severity of this [bullying] problem," that she "refused to support an amendment to the Resolution against bullying of adults and...[Village] employees," that she "only supported efforts against bullying of children!" (the author adds the quotation mark, showing how outrageous he/she thinks it is that Roxy Ross objects to bullying of children), and that she "fought against [an] amendment that would've resulted in a win-win compromise."
"She absolutely refused to compromise, " our guerrilla tells us, "thereby undermining...efficiency in government." Had Roxy Ross acceded to amendments and "compromises," we're told, "it would've saved our citizens tax dollars which must now be spent on Village staff and legal counsel which will have to hear another Resolution on bullying."
If you attended Village Commission meetings, you would know which Commissioner nurses grudges about irrelevant details forever, who is terribly hung up on the concept of imagined bullying of Village employees, who very typically distorts and perverts the positions of others to contort them into their precise opposites, and who is seemingly in love with wasting Village money on legal wild goose chases. It was in fact Roxy Ross who introduced the anti-bullying Resolution, it was Roxy who championed it, Roxy wrote it herself, using her legal skills and training and saving the Village the cost of having our attorney do it, and Roxy who attempted to consider amendments, until the amendments required wholesale reworking of the entire Resolution. It was at that point that Roxy suggested to the obsessed Commissioner that he redo her Resolution himself. As you can see from his comments, he is fond of criticizing, but not fond of work.
So I'm sorry to have to observe that it has apparently started, and almost two weeks in advance. Unfortunately, but not at all atypically or unexpectedly, the e-circulation is not revealed, so Roxy can counter the distortions and dishonest implications, but she cannot communicate this to the people who received the e-mail. She has no way to know who they are.
I suppose we should assume there is more to come. Our brave and honest correspondent calls him- or herself biscayneparkpride@yahoo.com. I'm not sure where "pride" comes into it, but at least we're provided with an anonymous e-mail source for this pathetic nonsense.
By the way, as I told you regarding vandalism or theft of campaign signs, circulating of material like this anonymously and without a permit is not legal. If you happen to see the distributing rats scurrying around with the paper version, see if you know who they are, or get any description you can, and call our police. They will very much want to know.
The two distinguishing features of this communication are that it is anonymous, and that it is presented at a time when the victim cannot address any of the allegations: the night before the election. In this sense, it is both cowardly (and illegal, interestingly enough) and underhanded. I have also never seen one of these in which I had confidence the assertions were true.
I fully expect to be the subject/victim of one of these myself this year. I doubt anyone will allege that I am a drug addict, child molester, or former embezzler, but I would expect, based on the kind of material typically presented, and the bent of the person who I think is behind these, some quotes from this blog. The fact is, I was going to mention to you just before the election that you should expect this screed, and you should consider 1) that it is unattributed/unsigned, and 2) that it is strategically circulated at a time that it cannot be responded to. So take it for what it appears to be worth, and the fact that whoever initiates it does not have the courage, honesty, and decency to tell you who he or she is.
But this year, we apparently have a variation on the theme, as they say. This year, there is an e-mail circulation (I'm not sure how wide the circulation was-- two people sent it to me) about Roxy Ross and an anti-bullying Resolution. The e-mail says that Roxy Ross "doesn't seem to comprehend the severity of this [bullying] problem," that she "refused to support an amendment to the Resolution against bullying of adults and...[Village] employees," that she "only supported efforts against bullying of children!" (the author adds the quotation mark, showing how outrageous he/she thinks it is that Roxy Ross objects to bullying of children), and that she "fought against [an] amendment that would've resulted in a win-win compromise."
"She absolutely refused to compromise, " our guerrilla tells us, "thereby undermining...efficiency in government." Had Roxy Ross acceded to amendments and "compromises," we're told, "it would've saved our citizens tax dollars which must now be spent on Village staff and legal counsel which will have to hear another Resolution on bullying."
If you attended Village Commission meetings, you would know which Commissioner nurses grudges about irrelevant details forever, who is terribly hung up on the concept of imagined bullying of Village employees, who very typically distorts and perverts the positions of others to contort them into their precise opposites, and who is seemingly in love with wasting Village money on legal wild goose chases. It was in fact Roxy Ross who introduced the anti-bullying Resolution, it was Roxy who championed it, Roxy wrote it herself, using her legal skills and training and saving the Village the cost of having our attorney do it, and Roxy who attempted to consider amendments, until the amendments required wholesale reworking of the entire Resolution. It was at that point that Roxy suggested to the obsessed Commissioner that he redo her Resolution himself. As you can see from his comments, he is fond of criticizing, but not fond of work.
So I'm sorry to have to observe that it has apparently started, and almost two weeks in advance. Unfortunately, but not at all atypically or unexpectedly, the e-circulation is not revealed, so Roxy can counter the distortions and dishonest implications, but she cannot communicate this to the people who received the e-mail. She has no way to know who they are.
I suppose we should assume there is more to come. Our brave and honest correspondent calls him- or herself biscayneparkpride@yahoo.com. I'm not sure where "pride" comes into it, but at least we're provided with an anonymous e-mail source for this pathetic nonsense.
By the way, as I told you regarding vandalism or theft of campaign signs, circulating of material like this anonymously and without a permit is not legal. If you happen to see the distributing rats scurrying around with the paper version, see if you know who they are, or get any description you can, and call our police. They will very much want to know.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
What Could You Expect?
The question raised is a very good one. In fact, it's an excellent and extremely appropriate one. Anyone who does not raise this question is not paying attention or thinking clearly.
The question is, if I am outspoken in this blog, and in my limited opportunity to make "public comments" at Commission meetings, what would I be like if I myself were a Commissioner? Would I be hostile, unrestrained, challenging? Is it not situational, but rather my nature to confront?
Great question. I appreciate your asking.
The answers are as follows: I have been a fully-fledged member of the Planning and Zoning Board, the Code Review Committee, and I am now a Trustee of the Biscayne Park Foundation. In fact, I'm the President of the Foundation, to the extent that offices and titles mean anything. Each assignment has been for at least two to three years. I left P&Z, because I thought someone else could do a better job than I could, and I left Code Review to join the Foundation, and because I had nothing else useful to add. My colleagues have included Gage Hartung, Andrew Olis, Elizabeth Piotrowski-Hornbuckle, Mario Rumiano, Al Childress, Harvey Bilt, Judi Hamelburg, Lily Harper, Sira Ramos, Dan Keys, Kelly Romano, Gary Kuhl, Steve Taylor, Supreme Dorvil, Victor Romano, Joe Chao, Chuck Ross, Marie Smith, and some others whom I can't remember from Code Review at the moment. If anyone were to ask me the question, I would say I believe I had excellent working relationships with all of them, though we did not and do not necessarily agree about things. I count many as friends, some as close friends, and I don't think there are any with whom I do not have a good relationship. If you think I'm overlooking something, I just gave you a list of people you can ask for confirmation.
I have on occasion been openly critical, in writing and during public comment at Commission meetings, of some Commissioners who have resisted or suppressed Steve Bernard and Bryan Cooper for no other reason than that they were Steve and Bryan. And I have seen this happen. I understand how easy it is, considering the affront and the offense represented by Steve and Bryan, and Noah Jacobs and Barbara Watts, to resist them simply because they are who they are, but I consider it unfair and not in the best interests of the Village to treat them this way. And the fact that all of them treat the rest of the Commission, and residents like me, this way does not change my position that they should be heard and their suggestions given genuine consideration.
I have also demonstrated an ability to listen to others, even people with whom I do not necessarily agree, and I can come to new understandings about things. I am capable of changing my mind, given a reasonable and compelling argument. I also believe in the democratic process, and I would uphold the will of the majority and our established rules, even if I would personally not prefer them. I never ask someone to believe me, just because I assert something, or because the person likes or is inclined to trust me. I encourage people to question and to look for opposing evidence, and I will help them find it. One of my friends sometimes chides me for always presenting both sides of an issue. A decision or conclusion needs to respect all considerations, not just one side of a story.
So although I think the question is a reasonable and frankly good one, I do not think there is cause for concern. If you disagree, please feel free to comment. (Also, unlike some of the people I tend to criticize, I am open to disagreement.)
The question is, if I am outspoken in this blog, and in my limited opportunity to make "public comments" at Commission meetings, what would I be like if I myself were a Commissioner? Would I be hostile, unrestrained, challenging? Is it not situational, but rather my nature to confront?
Great question. I appreciate your asking.
The answers are as follows: I have been a fully-fledged member of the Planning and Zoning Board, the Code Review Committee, and I am now a Trustee of the Biscayne Park Foundation. In fact, I'm the President of the Foundation, to the extent that offices and titles mean anything. Each assignment has been for at least two to three years. I left P&Z, because I thought someone else could do a better job than I could, and I left Code Review to join the Foundation, and because I had nothing else useful to add. My colleagues have included Gage Hartung, Andrew Olis, Elizabeth Piotrowski-Hornbuckle, Mario Rumiano, Al Childress, Harvey Bilt, Judi Hamelburg, Lily Harper, Sira Ramos, Dan Keys, Kelly Romano, Gary Kuhl, Steve Taylor, Supreme Dorvil, Victor Romano, Joe Chao, Chuck Ross, Marie Smith, and some others whom I can't remember from Code Review at the moment. If anyone were to ask me the question, I would say I believe I had excellent working relationships with all of them, though we did not and do not necessarily agree about things. I count many as friends, some as close friends, and I don't think there are any with whom I do not have a good relationship. If you think I'm overlooking something, I just gave you a list of people you can ask for confirmation.
I have on occasion been openly critical, in writing and during public comment at Commission meetings, of some Commissioners who have resisted or suppressed Steve Bernard and Bryan Cooper for no other reason than that they were Steve and Bryan. And I have seen this happen. I understand how easy it is, considering the affront and the offense represented by Steve and Bryan, and Noah Jacobs and Barbara Watts, to resist them simply because they are who they are, but I consider it unfair and not in the best interests of the Village to treat them this way. And the fact that all of them treat the rest of the Commission, and residents like me, this way does not change my position that they should be heard and their suggestions given genuine consideration.
I have also demonstrated an ability to listen to others, even people with whom I do not necessarily agree, and I can come to new understandings about things. I am capable of changing my mind, given a reasonable and compelling argument. I also believe in the democratic process, and I would uphold the will of the majority and our established rules, even if I would personally not prefer them. I never ask someone to believe me, just because I assert something, or because the person likes or is inclined to trust me. I encourage people to question and to look for opposing evidence, and I will help them find it. One of my friends sometimes chides me for always presenting both sides of an issue. A decision or conclusion needs to respect all considerations, not just one side of a story.
So although I think the question is a reasonable and frankly good one, I do not think there is cause for concern. If you disagree, please feel free to comment. (Also, unlike some of the people I tend to criticize, I am open to disagreement.)
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
From the Campaign Trail: Not So Fast
I admit this was only my idea, but I really thought it would be a great thing for all of us if we had a substantial barrier along the train track, from 121st to Griffing/108th. It seemed to me this would reduce the noise from the train, as well as the opportunity for intrusion from mischief-makers east of the track. It seemed to me from all I heard that those mischief-makers very definitely do use that opportunity to come here, jump a fence or two, steal or vandalize, and scurry back.
So as I've made my way around, especially near the track, I've asked people about their experiences living on a train line. I've been surprised at the responses.
The vast majority of our residents who live on or near the track say the same thing: at first it's bothersome, but you quickly enough get used to the noise. These residents, some of whom are renters, and some of whom are owners, are frankly not complaining. Not a lot, anyway.
As for intruders, most residents likewise don't see a significant problem. The few who did report problems talked mostly about "kids" throwing rocks over fences. It would take a pretty high wall to prevent something like that.
So one possibility is that perhaps it wouldn't be necessary to think about, and plan and save for, an expensive wall along the track. I'll continue to talk to our police and to the most affected residents, whether I win a Commission seat or not, to see if the problem is less than I imagined.
The other possibility is that the kind of person who agrees to live along the track is essentially self-selected as someone who isn't likely to complain. If such a person would find it unbearable, or even highly problematic, to live along a train track, he or she probably wouldn't have agreed to live there in the first place. Or the lower rent and lower house prices made it worth it to deal with the train and the access from outsiders. To be further explored.
The first house I ever bought, in Massachusetts, had a train track down the slope behind the back yard, about as far from the house as the FEC track is from BP houses. I didn't like it at all. And there were no mischief-makers, only noise and vibration. So I was assuming our residents wouldn't like life on the track any more than I did. Maybe I was wrong. As I say, I'll continue to explore.
So as I've made my way around, especially near the track, I've asked people about their experiences living on a train line. I've been surprised at the responses.
The vast majority of our residents who live on or near the track say the same thing: at first it's bothersome, but you quickly enough get used to the noise. These residents, some of whom are renters, and some of whom are owners, are frankly not complaining. Not a lot, anyway.
As for intruders, most residents likewise don't see a significant problem. The few who did report problems talked mostly about "kids" throwing rocks over fences. It would take a pretty high wall to prevent something like that.
So one possibility is that perhaps it wouldn't be necessary to think about, and plan and save for, an expensive wall along the track. I'll continue to talk to our police and to the most affected residents, whether I win a Commission seat or not, to see if the problem is less than I imagined.
The other possibility is that the kind of person who agrees to live along the track is essentially self-selected as someone who isn't likely to complain. If such a person would find it unbearable, or even highly problematic, to live along a train track, he or she probably wouldn't have agreed to live there in the first place. Or the lower rent and lower house prices made it worth it to deal with the train and the access from outsiders. To be further explored.
The first house I ever bought, in Massachusetts, had a train track down the slope behind the back yard, about as far from the house as the FEC track is from BP houses. I didn't like it at all. And there were no mischief-makers, only noise and vibration. So I was assuming our residents wouldn't like life on the track any more than I did. Maybe I was wrong. As I say, I'll continue to explore.
Monday, November 18, 2013
From the Campaign Trail: Sign Language
I've been having trouble with some of my campaign signs. It seems that sometimes, my signs jump out of the ground and decide to take a rest. They lie down in the grass, instead of standing where I placed them. And my signs have less energy than do those of some of the other people running. Sometimes, there will be a collection of three or four signs, representing me and other candidates, and only mine will be lying down on the job.
On Saturday night, I got a call from one supporter to say that the signs in his yard (four of them, from four of us) had been stolen, and the same thing happened to the signs in some of his neighbors' yards. They also lost signs from me and the people I myself support. I have no idea, and no way to know, if the signs of candidates I do not support are also being vandalized or stolen. Anyway, why would anyone tamper with campaign signs? It's only a matter for the victims of taking the time, trouble, and money to correct the vandalism. Oh, I just answered my own question, didn't I.
For your information, and this is information you might need to use, it is a criminal act to tamper with political campaign signs. If you ever see someone vandalizing, manipulating, or stealing political campaign signs, you should call the police with that fact, and as good a description as you can provide of the miscreants. If the information you provide is good enough, an arrest will follow. It's that serious.
PS: I reported my lost signs to our BP police. Unfortunately, I'm not the only candidate who has lost signs. But fortunately, not all six of us have. Only Ross, Bilt, Coviello, and I have reported lost signs. Jacobs and Espinoza have been much luckier.
PS: I reported my lost signs to our BP police. Unfortunately, I'm not the only candidate who has lost signs. But fortunately, not all six of us have. Only Ross, Bilt, Coviello, and I have reported lost signs. Jacobs and Espinoza have been much luckier.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Who Could Imagine?
Who could imagine that a sitting Commissioner of Biscayne Park would post videos on YouTube of portions of Commission Meetings and write comments to ridicule and humiliate other Commissioners? It came as quite a surprise to me to read that then Commissioner, Steve Bernard, had posted such videos and had written very disparaging comments to accompany them.
I came upon these videos not long ago. It was suggested I watch a YouTube clip of your current Mayor, Noah Jacobs, (09/13/2011) rambling about his disapproval that a concrete pole had been erected in his yard by FPL. This is a bit confusing to me for two reasons. If I lived in a state where hurricanes were expected, I would want power lines carried on structures that could withstand the strongest winds. The other confusing thing for me was that Mayor Jacobs seemed to be very surprised by the whole idea of power lines carried on concrete poles. I watched a YouTube video dated April 5, 2011 where this topic was discussed at the Commission Meeting. Maybe Noah missed that meeting.
If you haven’t seen any of these videos, search YouTube and you will easily find them by using the phrase “Biscayne Park Florida Commission Meeting”. As ridiculous as Noah Jacobs sounded, Steve Bernard’s behavior can only be described as disgusting. He interrupted his fellow Commissioners on numerous occasions, mumbled under his breath, was extremely rude, sarcastic, and taunting, and very, very negative. Here is an example of a man who posted videos of himself with no realization of how insulting and nasty he appeared.
The videos are worth watching as you prepare to vote on December 3rd for your new Commissioners. From his own postings of portions of Commission Meetings, I know that Steve Bernard wanted to fight. He was not looking for the common ground among the Commissioners on behalf of the Village. Instead, he wanted to “expose” some imagined impropriety – meeting after meeting after meeting. The topic changed, but his point was always the same. He alleged that some Commissioner or member of the Village’s administrative team had acted in a manner that was illegal or grossly unethical. Bernard’s harassment of his fellow commissioners increased each time Ross, or Anderson, or Childress countered his accusations. In each video, he presented himself as if he knew all of the facts, and he consistently blocked any information presented that was contrary to his theory. Why he would take such a negative position and behave in such an inappropriate manner is a mystery. Maybe someone should ask him.
Sadly for the well being of the Village, Bernard’s legacy has continued these past 2 years. How do I know this? Yes, I follow this blog. But, more importantly, I had the opportunity to attend a Commission Meeting during one of my visits to the Village. It was everything described in this blog. I witnessed a battle over allowing you, the residents of Biscayne Park, to make a change through a referendum. Commissioners Jacobs and Cooper did not want you to be allowed to do this. The reason I heard expressed in that meeting was the same one voiced by Steve Bernard in the videos he posted: it changes the unique quality of the Village. But isn’t the Village the residents? And don’t the residents have a right to make changes that move their community forward?
Please meet the candidates, ask questions, do whatever you can to make an informed choice for yourself. And, by all means, get out to vote and invite a friend from the Village to join you.
Mimi D’Angelo
Wellesley, MA
Friday, November 15, 2013
Here's a Dilemma For You
I put the original post back, because one of my advisors toned it down and felt it was OK to repost. Two other trusted advisors have seen it and say no. So I pulled it again, this time permanently, and have used the "original replacement," which, with the comments, tells at least parts of the story.
I did a post last night, as a summary of the Special Commission meeting. The person who is functioning as my campaign advisor, or consiglieri, told me in advance not to do one at all. She was at the meeting, she knew what happened, she knew how I had to have reacted, and she told me just to forget about it.
Being the person I am, I did the post anyway. And I published it. Some people saw it. My advisor, who knows me painfully well, stayed up late enough and saw it, too. Her response to it was "It's a great post - and a wonderful recap. It CANNOT go up while you are a candidate, unless you aren't a serious candidate."
The dilemma is that I definitely am a serious candidate. I'm also serious about wanting to let people know what goes on around here, and I use this blog to report it. It's a real "conflict." If I tell you what happened in the meeting last night, I jeopardize my chance of having a successful Commission candidacy, at least according to my advisor. It's as if you, as a voter, really might shoot the messenger. If I protect my image, I'm not doing my self-appointed job of telling you what you have no other way to know, since you didn't come to the meeting. As always, I certainly do have my own way of telling things, but I do not believe I am an inaccurate reporter. As you can see from my advisor's reply to me, she doesn't think I was inaccurate, either. She just thinks I cannot be the one to tell you what happened.
So I have pulled the post for now. I'm still thinking about whether to put it back, and I'll show it to a few selected people, to see if they all agree with my advisor. If they do, I apologize for failing to tell you what I think you should know. However, there is a way out of part of this dilemma. If you want to know what my advisor says I shouldn't tell you, ask Chuck Ross, Janey Anderson, Rosemary Wais, Brad Piper, Brian McNoldy, Linda Dillon, David Coviello, Manny Espinoza or his wife, Dale Blanton, Jorge Marinoni, Barbara Kuhl, Gary Kuhl, or Lynn Fischer. It seems to me there were a couple of other people there, but I'm not remembering them right now.
What is essential for you to know, no matter what, is that we have a new manager (white smoke), and her name is Heidi Shafran. We have all been given a good chance to get to know her, and we're all more than satisfied to welcome her to the Village. The fact is, we liked all three manager candidates, and we could not but have wound up with a manager we were happy to have. As pleasing as it was to welcome Heidi, it was frustrating to have to give away the chance to welcome Sarah Hannah-Spurlock and Sharon Ragoonan. All wonderful women any one of whom would/will make a great manager. Ah, the dilemmas we all have.
The rest of the meeting was foolish and clearly illustrated why I, and some of the rest of us, are running. But you won't, for the moment, hear any more about it from me. I am truly sorry, and I will continue to explore whether I should put the original post back.
I did a post last night, as a summary of the Special Commission meeting. The person who is functioning as my campaign advisor, or consiglieri, told me in advance not to do one at all. She was at the meeting, she knew what happened, she knew how I had to have reacted, and she told me just to forget about it.
Being the person I am, I did the post anyway. And I published it. Some people saw it. My advisor, who knows me painfully well, stayed up late enough and saw it, too. Her response to it was "It's a great post - and a wonderful recap. It CANNOT go up while you are a candidate, unless you aren't a serious candidate."
The dilemma is that I definitely am a serious candidate. I'm also serious about wanting to let people know what goes on around here, and I use this blog to report it. It's a real "conflict." If I tell you what happened in the meeting last night, I jeopardize my chance of having a successful Commission candidacy, at least according to my advisor. It's as if you, as a voter, really might shoot the messenger. If I protect my image, I'm not doing my self-appointed job of telling you what you have no other way to know, since you didn't come to the meeting. As always, I certainly do have my own way of telling things, but I do not believe I am an inaccurate reporter. As you can see from my advisor's reply to me, she doesn't think I was inaccurate, either. She just thinks I cannot be the one to tell you what happened.
So I have pulled the post for now. I'm still thinking about whether to put it back, and I'll show it to a few selected people, to see if they all agree with my advisor. If they do, I apologize for failing to tell you what I think you should know. However, there is a way out of part of this dilemma. If you want to know what my advisor says I shouldn't tell you, ask Chuck Ross, Janey Anderson, Rosemary Wais, Brad Piper, Brian McNoldy, Linda Dillon, David Coviello, Manny Espinoza or his wife, Dale Blanton, Jorge Marinoni, Barbara Kuhl, Gary Kuhl, or Lynn Fischer. It seems to me there were a couple of other people there, but I'm not remembering them right now.
What is essential for you to know, no matter what, is that we have a new manager (white smoke), and her name is Heidi Shafran. We have all been given a good chance to get to know her, and we're all more than satisfied to welcome her to the Village. The fact is, we liked all three manager candidates, and we could not but have wound up with a manager we were happy to have. As pleasing as it was to welcome Heidi, it was frustrating to have to give away the chance to welcome Sarah Hannah-Spurlock and Sharon Ragoonan. All wonderful women any one of whom would/will make a great manager. Ah, the dilemmas we all have.
The rest of the meeting was foolish and clearly illustrated why I, and some of the rest of us, are running. But you won't, for the moment, hear any more about it from me. I am truly sorry, and I will continue to explore whether I should put the original post back.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Don't Be Shy. Vote!
When I say shy, I don't mean timid and inhibited. I mean short, as in incomplete. Like, I couldn't go out for dinner, because I was shy the $20 I needed to pay for my meal.
There are three open Commission seats for the December 3, 2013 election, and you can vote for three people. Seven are running, so you can pick your favorite three. Do that. Pick the three you like best. If you pick fewer than the three you're allowed, the phenomenon is called undervoting.
Milton Hunter sent out a letter in which he catalogued the voting pattern in Biscayne Park over the past several years. Milton was talking about Steve Bernard and Steve's influence on a number of things, and Milton noted that since Steve became a Commissioner himself, the percent of undervoting in BP increased dramatically. What Milton seemed to be saying was that Steve encouraged people to vote for fewer than three candidates.
Last year, there was a campaign to move the BP election to the general election, to save money (we will pay less than half of what we've been paying) and increase (double) voter turnout. One of the arguments of the opponents of this idea was that the "stand-alone" BP election, detached from the general election, was somehow more community-oriented, intimate, and friendly. These opponents argued that they liked this quaint, neighborly approach, and they didn't want to lose it.
I don't know that that idea had much real merit (the majority of voters didn't think it did), but if there's something to be said for community friendliness and neighborliness, then we have to look back at Milton's point about Steve and the undervotes. If what Milton implies about Steve is correct, then it appears Steve acts in a way that is antithetical to friendly, neighborly, quaint community spirit, and instead, he turns a unifying community event into a war. Elections Bernard-style are not fun or friendly or quaint or unifying. They're marked by calculation, maneuvering, and manipulation. If he encourages people to identify usses and thems, and he advises adding affront to affirmation (voting against and avoiding, as much as voting for and endorsing), then his posture is disruptive and divisive. It's mean-spirited.
As I said, I don't know that having stand-alone elections is an important mechanism for preserving community spirit (I certainly don't think it's worth losing half the voters and paying much more for the loss), but I do agree that BP community spirit should be one of our defining features.
So don't undervote this year. Find three you like. If you can identify one or two you like, but you can't come up with a full slate, make a comment at the end of this post. Ask about us. Probe. Four of us (Roxy Ross, Harvey Bilt, David Coviello, and I) definitely read this blog, and it's possible Noah Jacobs does, too. Your question or comment will find its way to the person who intrigues or potentially interests you. I'll see to it that it does. You'll get a response. Make sure you leave your name, e- or street address, and feel free to leave a phone number. If you're reluctant to commit to that much exposure, send me your information privately, and I'll see to it that it gets where you want it to go. Write me at vbpblogger@gmail.com or fredjonasmd@gmail.com. Or call me at 305-891-5030. Just figure it out, so you can have all the voting to which you're entitled. You're going to get three Commissioners out of this race, so you might as well have something to say about it.
You can also contact candidates directly. I just gave you my info.
Roxanna Ross can be reached at rox@roxross.com, and by phone at 305-710-0620. David Coviello can be reached at lawdjc@gmail.com or by phone at 786-385-8953. Harvey Bilt can be reached at hbilt@aol.com or 305-610-4300. The others did not respond to my e-mail request for contact information.
"For the Best We Can Be." (See?)
There are three open Commission seats for the December 3, 2013 election, and you can vote for three people. Seven are running, so you can pick your favorite three. Do that. Pick the three you like best. If you pick fewer than the three you're allowed, the phenomenon is called undervoting.
Milton Hunter sent out a letter in which he catalogued the voting pattern in Biscayne Park over the past several years. Milton was talking about Steve Bernard and Steve's influence on a number of things, and Milton noted that since Steve became a Commissioner himself, the percent of undervoting in BP increased dramatically. What Milton seemed to be saying was that Steve encouraged people to vote for fewer than three candidates.
Last year, there was a campaign to move the BP election to the general election, to save money (we will pay less than half of what we've been paying) and increase (double) voter turnout. One of the arguments of the opponents of this idea was that the "stand-alone" BP election, detached from the general election, was somehow more community-oriented, intimate, and friendly. These opponents argued that they liked this quaint, neighborly approach, and they didn't want to lose it.
I don't know that that idea had much real merit (the majority of voters didn't think it did), but if there's something to be said for community friendliness and neighborliness, then we have to look back at Milton's point about Steve and the undervotes. If what Milton implies about Steve is correct, then it appears Steve acts in a way that is antithetical to friendly, neighborly, quaint community spirit, and instead, he turns a unifying community event into a war. Elections Bernard-style are not fun or friendly or quaint or unifying. They're marked by calculation, maneuvering, and manipulation. If he encourages people to identify usses and thems, and he advises adding affront to affirmation (voting against and avoiding, as much as voting for and endorsing), then his posture is disruptive and divisive. It's mean-spirited.
As I said, I don't know that having stand-alone elections is an important mechanism for preserving community spirit (I certainly don't think it's worth losing half the voters and paying much more for the loss), but I do agree that BP community spirit should be one of our defining features.
So don't undervote this year. Find three you like. If you can identify one or two you like, but you can't come up with a full slate, make a comment at the end of this post. Ask about us. Probe. Four of us (Roxy Ross, Harvey Bilt, David Coviello, and I) definitely read this blog, and it's possible Noah Jacobs does, too. Your question or comment will find its way to the person who intrigues or potentially interests you. I'll see to it that it does. You'll get a response. Make sure you leave your name, e- or street address, and feel free to leave a phone number. If you're reluctant to commit to that much exposure, send me your information privately, and I'll see to it that it gets where you want it to go. Write me at vbpblogger@gmail.com or fredjonasmd@gmail.com. Or call me at 305-891-5030. Just figure it out, so you can have all the voting to which you're entitled. You're going to get three Commissioners out of this race, so you might as well have something to say about it.
You can also contact candidates directly. I just gave you my info.
Roxanna Ross can be reached at rox@roxross.com, and by phone at 305-710-0620. David Coviello can be reached at lawdjc@gmail.com or by phone at 786-385-8953. Harvey Bilt can be reached at hbilt@aol.com or 305-610-4300. The others did not respond to my e-mail request for contact information.
"For the Best We Can Be." (See?)
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Here's What I Want to Know About Annexation
In theory, there are three proposed reasons we should not seek to annex any other territory:
1) We don't really need the extra money.
2) We have other less neighborhood-changing ways to get it.
3) Annexing is bad for the Village, whether we need the money or not.
I don't usually hear much about argument #1, and when I do, it immediately segues into argument #2: the reason we don't need the extra money is that we have other local ways to get it, and those other ways do not, by the way, involve raising our taxes. Essentially all of the proposed alternative methods for getting money to pay for what we need center on getting grants and economizing further. It's not my aim at the moment to get back into this discussion, but let me reiterate a few points. Regarding grants, there are fewer of them out there, they're hard to get, they don't always apply to the specific need we have, they do not renew (they're unstable), and they usually require us to "match" them. By and large, if we can't afford to do the project, we probably can't afford half the price of the project, either. And grants are not awarded to help poor municipalities survive their day-to-day expenses.
As for further/continued economizing, there is little left to us to do, and it's a short term, "bandaid" remedy anyway. Even if we could find more savings, like outsourcing garbage pick-up and/or police (I've heard both), these savings can only happen once. We can't reduce these expenses, then reduce them again, as if the initial reduction had never happened, then reduce them all over again, etc. So if our problem is expenses that gradually and continually increase over time, or if it's repairs and improvements that have to be done on a recurring basis over the years or decades (yes, those are our problems), these one-time reductions don't help us. They appear to, when the reduction is made, but the help gradually dissipates, as the underlying costs continue to rise. Costs will always rise faster than homestead-protected revenues, and if we play the game of trying to stay a step ahead of cost increases by cutting back expenses, we will eventually lose the game. It's one of those "borrowing from Peter to pay Paul" arrangements. It's not far removed from a Ponzi scheme.
But that's not my question right now. What I want to know is what, independently and on its own, is wrong with annexation. Annexing is bad for the Village, because_______.
The near-rational, if subjective, answer I most commonly hear is something about changing the "ambiance" of Biscayne Park. I do understand this, although it doesn't fully make sense. The idea seems to be that bringing a non-residential area into Biscayne Park, by legally annexing it, so it is actually and technically part of this municipality and called "Biscayne Park," changes the neighborhood. Well, yes and no. It does "change" us, in the sense that we are no longer, for example, "100% residential." (Not that we are anyway.) But we don't physically "bring" anything anywhere. If we annexed the territory from the train track to Biscayne Boulevard, from 121st Street to 118th Street, it would stay where it is now. And it's there, for better or for worse, whether we annex it or we don't. If that area became part of the municipality of Biscayne Park, commerce, industry, and apartment living would be no closer to the triangle than they are now. We might as well say we wouldn't want to annex the train track, because we don't want a train running through Biscayne Park. Well it already runs where it runs, directly and imposingly along our border. The train wouldn't get louder if we owned the track.
So I get it, but I don't. Another argument I hear has to do with including residents, and voters, from over there to over here. And believe me, I definitely do get that. It was my biggest argument against annexation, too. But here's the response. Sad to say, there are very few registered voters in the area we originally had in mind. Not that there aren't residents. Just that they aren't registered to vote. There had to be 250 registered voters, just for them to have a say about annexation. There weren't even that many, so there certainly aren't enough to make any real impact in voting about BP issues. And as disinclined, apparently, as they are to register to vote, they would probably be even less inclined to bother to come here to the precinct to make the actual vote. This is not a good thing in our society, but it's the way it is.
The last argument people make is that "there's a lot of crime over there." As it turns out, there isn't a lot of crime over there. Our police Chief has studied this issue and found out that the crime rate is generally low, and most of the crime is shoplifting from the CVS. But be that as it may, if there's crime there, then there's crime there. This would be as true if the area was part of BP as if it isn't. Further, don't we keep saying we have great police in BP? We pay extra to have exceptional and breathtakingly effective police protection. If we're right in what we're doing, and if our police are really so good, wouldn't it behoove us, as well as them "over there," for our police to provide over there the service they provide over here? To me, the fantasy of high crime over there sounds like a good reason that we should annex them. Look at it the other way around. Suppose the City of Miami, or the County, said "Ray Atesiano is a genius. We have to hire him away from BP, so he can do for us what he did for them." That would make a lot of sense for them, and they'd be right to do it. They should want Ray's influence and accomplishment in a wider setting than just here. So why wouldn't we do that ourselves? Why wouldn't we extend Ray's influence and accomplishment, for the benefit he would confer on a tiny morsel of unincorporated Dade County, as well as the impact of that improvement on our upside down triangle? (By the way, here's my idea. We rent Ray out as a special consultant to other police forces. He gives them a training, to teach them to do what he's done here, and we split the fee with him. He makes more for himself, and we get extra money, too. And everybody gets less crime. Larry Churchman, Nick Wollschlager, and the rest of the guys keep the show running Ray-style in Ray's occasional absences. You like?)
So I'm still trying to get a grasp on what I might be missing: why annexation is a bad idea. Never mind whether we need the money, and never mind whether we could get money some other way. Why in itself is our annexing the area in question not good for Biscayne Park? I'm asking. Please either use the comment link to leave your answer, or, if the answer is more complicated than that, tell me you want a whole post, so you can fully explain it.
1) We don't really need the extra money.
2) We have other less neighborhood-changing ways to get it.
3) Annexing is bad for the Village, whether we need the money or not.
I don't usually hear much about argument #1, and when I do, it immediately segues into argument #2: the reason we don't need the extra money is that we have other local ways to get it, and those other ways do not, by the way, involve raising our taxes. Essentially all of the proposed alternative methods for getting money to pay for what we need center on getting grants and economizing further. It's not my aim at the moment to get back into this discussion, but let me reiterate a few points. Regarding grants, there are fewer of them out there, they're hard to get, they don't always apply to the specific need we have, they do not renew (they're unstable), and they usually require us to "match" them. By and large, if we can't afford to do the project, we probably can't afford half the price of the project, either. And grants are not awarded to help poor municipalities survive their day-to-day expenses.
As for further/continued economizing, there is little left to us to do, and it's a short term, "bandaid" remedy anyway. Even if we could find more savings, like outsourcing garbage pick-up and/or police (I've heard both), these savings can only happen once. We can't reduce these expenses, then reduce them again, as if the initial reduction had never happened, then reduce them all over again, etc. So if our problem is expenses that gradually and continually increase over time, or if it's repairs and improvements that have to be done on a recurring basis over the years or decades (yes, those are our problems), these one-time reductions don't help us. They appear to, when the reduction is made, but the help gradually dissipates, as the underlying costs continue to rise. Costs will always rise faster than homestead-protected revenues, and if we play the game of trying to stay a step ahead of cost increases by cutting back expenses, we will eventually lose the game. It's one of those "borrowing from Peter to pay Paul" arrangements. It's not far removed from a Ponzi scheme.
But that's not my question right now. What I want to know is what, independently and on its own, is wrong with annexation. Annexing is bad for the Village, because_______.
The near-rational, if subjective, answer I most commonly hear is something about changing the "ambiance" of Biscayne Park. I do understand this, although it doesn't fully make sense. The idea seems to be that bringing a non-residential area into Biscayne Park, by legally annexing it, so it is actually and technically part of this municipality and called "Biscayne Park," changes the neighborhood. Well, yes and no. It does "change" us, in the sense that we are no longer, for example, "100% residential." (Not that we are anyway.) But we don't physically "bring" anything anywhere. If we annexed the territory from the train track to Biscayne Boulevard, from 121st Street to 118th Street, it would stay where it is now. And it's there, for better or for worse, whether we annex it or we don't. If that area became part of the municipality of Biscayne Park, commerce, industry, and apartment living would be no closer to the triangle than they are now. We might as well say we wouldn't want to annex the train track, because we don't want a train running through Biscayne Park. Well it already runs where it runs, directly and imposingly along our border. The train wouldn't get louder if we owned the track.
So I get it, but I don't. Another argument I hear has to do with including residents, and voters, from over there to over here. And believe me, I definitely do get that. It was my biggest argument against annexation, too. But here's the response. Sad to say, there are very few registered voters in the area we originally had in mind. Not that there aren't residents. Just that they aren't registered to vote. There had to be 250 registered voters, just for them to have a say about annexation. There weren't even that many, so there certainly aren't enough to make any real impact in voting about BP issues. And as disinclined, apparently, as they are to register to vote, they would probably be even less inclined to bother to come here to the precinct to make the actual vote. This is not a good thing in our society, but it's the way it is.
The last argument people make is that "there's a lot of crime over there." As it turns out, there isn't a lot of crime over there. Our police Chief has studied this issue and found out that the crime rate is generally low, and most of the crime is shoplifting from the CVS. But be that as it may, if there's crime there, then there's crime there. This would be as true if the area was part of BP as if it isn't. Further, don't we keep saying we have great police in BP? We pay extra to have exceptional and breathtakingly effective police protection. If we're right in what we're doing, and if our police are really so good, wouldn't it behoove us, as well as them "over there," for our police to provide over there the service they provide over here? To me, the fantasy of high crime over there sounds like a good reason that we should annex them. Look at it the other way around. Suppose the City of Miami, or the County, said "Ray Atesiano is a genius. We have to hire him away from BP, so he can do for us what he did for them." That would make a lot of sense for them, and they'd be right to do it. They should want Ray's influence and accomplishment in a wider setting than just here. So why wouldn't we do that ourselves? Why wouldn't we extend Ray's influence and accomplishment, for the benefit he would confer on a tiny morsel of unincorporated Dade County, as well as the impact of that improvement on our upside down triangle? (By the way, here's my idea. We rent Ray out as a special consultant to other police forces. He gives them a training, to teach them to do what he's done here, and we split the fee with him. He makes more for himself, and we get extra money, too. And everybody gets less crime. Larry Churchman, Nick Wollschlager, and the rest of the guys keep the show running Ray-style in Ray's occasional absences. You like?)
So I'm still trying to get a grasp on what I might be missing: why annexation is a bad idea. Never mind whether we need the money, and never mind whether we could get money some other way. Why in itself is our annexing the area in question not good for Biscayne Park? I'm asking. Please either use the comment link to leave your answer, or, if the answer is more complicated than that, tell me you want a whole post, so you can fully explain it.
Monday, November 11, 2013
The Race is On
There are seven of us running for three open Commission seats. Two of the three incumbents (Ross and Jacobs) are running. As you know, all seats are elected "at large," so we are all competing with each other. Of the seven of us, the three highest vote-getters will win.
I have reached out to all candidates to invite them to post whatever they like on this blog. I offered Noah Jacobs posts long ago, about anything he wanted, but he never responded. David Coviello and Harvey Bilt have published posts, as you know. I invited Manny Espinoza directly, by e-mail, but he did not respond. I reached out to the person who encouraged Jenny Johnson-Sardella to run, since I didn't know Jenny's contact information. That person eventually told me Jenny would contact me, but Jenny never did. Funny enough, while I was campaigning door-to-door, I met Jenny at her home. She asked me what the request that she contact me was about, I told her, and said she would get back to me. I still have not heard from her. Roxy Ross has her own method of campaigning, and she did not feel a post in this blog would be more useful for getting out her message than what she's already doing.
There's a bit of a theme developing among candidates. Roxy Ross has long used the motto "A Better Place to Be." My campaign slogan is "For the Best We Can Be." David Coviello entitled his blog post "We Can Be Better." Harvey Bilt wants to increase property values by making the Village "better." There's something positive, progressive, uplifting, goal-directed, constructive about mottos and statements like these. These positions suggest that their authors want something, and what they want is something good, and something better than what is.
Noah Jacobs announced to us one day in a Commission meeting that "government is reactive." I don't know that Noah is right about that, at least that good and effective government is only reactive, but let's assume Noah is telling us his own vision, or lack of vision, is nothing more than reactive. This would suggest that Noah has no agenda, other than to react, and that's pretty much what he's consistently shown us. Noah doesn't want anything. If someone allegedly approaches Noah with a complaint about something, Noah, as an elected official, might (re)act on that complaint and advocate for the person who allegedly made it, although it appears materially to depend on who the person is. Some people get fierce advocacy from Noah, and others don't get the time of day.
I have no idea what Manny Espinoza wants, other than to complain that the Village's rules deprive some people (him and his wife) of doing whatever they want with their properties. I don't know anything about Jenny Johnson-Sardella at all, except that she seems like a very nice person.
Biscayne Park is a wonderful neighborhood. It's a treasure. Most of us chose it for exactly that reason. But the Park has limitations, some of which we prefer, and it has problems. I don't think any of us, when we're being honest with ourselves, prefers the problems. And our biggest problem now, which is the biggest problem there is, is whether we can survive as our own municipality if we keep doing what we're doing. There seems to be pretty good agreement we can't. The question is what we can and should do about it, assuming you don't approve of our going defunct.
You have to vote soon. You have to decide whom you want to represent you. There are real stakes. Do you want someone who wants something, for the neighborhood and for you? Are you looking for something better than what is? Or do you want someone who will sit back and wait for the eviction notice, then "react?" Do you want preventive care, so you won't get sick, or do you prefer heroic surgery and chemotherapy, only after it's agreed you're terminally ill?
I have reached out to all candidates to invite them to post whatever they like on this blog. I offered Noah Jacobs posts long ago, about anything he wanted, but he never responded. David Coviello and Harvey Bilt have published posts, as you know. I invited Manny Espinoza directly, by e-mail, but he did not respond. I reached out to the person who encouraged Jenny Johnson-Sardella to run, since I didn't know Jenny's contact information. That person eventually told me Jenny would contact me, but Jenny never did. Funny enough, while I was campaigning door-to-door, I met Jenny at her home. She asked me what the request that she contact me was about, I told her, and said she would get back to me. I still have not heard from her. Roxy Ross has her own method of campaigning, and she did not feel a post in this blog would be more useful for getting out her message than what she's already doing.
There's a bit of a theme developing among candidates. Roxy Ross has long used the motto "A Better Place to Be." My campaign slogan is "For the Best We Can Be." David Coviello entitled his blog post "We Can Be Better." Harvey Bilt wants to increase property values by making the Village "better." There's something positive, progressive, uplifting, goal-directed, constructive about mottos and statements like these. These positions suggest that their authors want something, and what they want is something good, and something better than what is.
Noah Jacobs announced to us one day in a Commission meeting that "government is reactive." I don't know that Noah is right about that, at least that good and effective government is only reactive, but let's assume Noah is telling us his own vision, or lack of vision, is nothing more than reactive. This would suggest that Noah has no agenda, other than to react, and that's pretty much what he's consistently shown us. Noah doesn't want anything. If someone allegedly approaches Noah with a complaint about something, Noah, as an elected official, might (re)act on that complaint and advocate for the person who allegedly made it, although it appears materially to depend on who the person is. Some people get fierce advocacy from Noah, and others don't get the time of day.
I have no idea what Manny Espinoza wants, other than to complain that the Village's rules deprive some people (him and his wife) of doing whatever they want with their properties. I don't know anything about Jenny Johnson-Sardella at all, except that she seems like a very nice person.
Biscayne Park is a wonderful neighborhood. It's a treasure. Most of us chose it for exactly that reason. But the Park has limitations, some of which we prefer, and it has problems. I don't think any of us, when we're being honest with ourselves, prefers the problems. And our biggest problem now, which is the biggest problem there is, is whether we can survive as our own municipality if we keep doing what we're doing. There seems to be pretty good agreement we can't. The question is what we can and should do about it, assuming you don't approve of our going defunct.
You have to vote soon. You have to decide whom you want to represent you. There are real stakes. Do you want someone who wants something, for the neighborhood and for you? Are you looking for something better than what is? Or do you want someone who will sit back and wait for the eviction notice, then "react?" Do you want preventive care, so you won't get sick, or do you prefer heroic surgery and chemotherapy, only after it's agreed you're terminally ill?
Sunday, November 10, 2013
A Few Thoughts From Harvey Bilt
Thank you, Fred, for permitting me to post on your blog. I have a few brief thoughts to share with respect to my candidacy for Biscayne Park Commission.
I am committed to reasonableness, responsibility, and respectfulness.
Vicki and I moved here 15 years ago because we liked the character of the Park. Feeling safe is always an important factor in deciding where you live and purchase your home. Being safe has never been an issue here. We are very fortunate to have an excellent police force, which I will always support.
There are maintenance and improvement projects in the Park that, typically, Village government would fund, such as plantings in the medians and Village signage. We do not have those luxuries in our budget. The alternative is to allow residents, with Parks and Parkways' and Public Works' approval, to enhance the medians. We should also allow residents, on a block-by-block basis, to enhance the street signage, as residents could raise funds for cohesive signage to be purchased by the Park.
Wouldn't it be nice for people to drive through our Park and immediately recognize that they are in Biscayne Park because of the beauty of the medians and attractive street signage designating Biscayne Park?
Sally Heyman, our county Commissioner, who has done so much for our Park, including securing many police vehicles and other equipment for us (at little or no cost), recently attended our Commission meeting and suggested that we annex property south of 121 Street and east of the FEC railroad tracks. I would recommend that we pursue this action so we can get the facts, including anticipated additional revenues and expenses under different annexation scenarios. We need a complete picture, which is not available to us unless and until we make application.
In order to ensure property values are maintained and increased, we must keep our Village attractive to current residents and potential buyers, not through being cheap but through being better. A critical component is effective Code enforcement. All three candidates for Village Manager have stated this fact. I have an excellent grasp of Code issues, having served on the Code Review Committee and currently serving on the Code Enforcement Committee. A strong Code enforcement process is one of the single most important actions we can continue in order to strengthen our property values.
Both Vicki and I have been involved in Village committees, and have tried through the years to attend as many Commission and special meetings as possible. Recently, the Commission meetings have become very mean-spirited. Because of this, fewer residents attend. I would like to change that. There's no reason for people to be disrespectful to one another.
These are a few ideas that I believe encompass maintaining and preserving the unique qualities of Biscayne Park, while taking reasonable and responsible steps to ensure our future.
Respectfully submitted,
Your Neighbor,
Harvey Bilt
November 10, 2013
I am committed to reasonableness, responsibility, and respectfulness.
Vicki and I moved here 15 years ago because we liked the character of the Park. Feeling safe is always an important factor in deciding where you live and purchase your home. Being safe has never been an issue here. We are very fortunate to have an excellent police force, which I will always support.
There are maintenance and improvement projects in the Park that, typically, Village government would fund, such as plantings in the medians and Village signage. We do not have those luxuries in our budget. The alternative is to allow residents, with Parks and Parkways' and Public Works' approval, to enhance the medians. We should also allow residents, on a block-by-block basis, to enhance the street signage, as residents could raise funds for cohesive signage to be purchased by the Park.
Wouldn't it be nice for people to drive through our Park and immediately recognize that they are in Biscayne Park because of the beauty of the medians and attractive street signage designating Biscayne Park?
Sally Heyman, our county Commissioner, who has done so much for our Park, including securing many police vehicles and other equipment for us (at little or no cost), recently attended our Commission meeting and suggested that we annex property south of 121 Street and east of the FEC railroad tracks. I would recommend that we pursue this action so we can get the facts, including anticipated additional revenues and expenses under different annexation scenarios. We need a complete picture, which is not available to us unless and until we make application.
In order to ensure property values are maintained and increased, we must keep our Village attractive to current residents and potential buyers, not through being cheap but through being better. A critical component is effective Code enforcement. All three candidates for Village Manager have stated this fact. I have an excellent grasp of Code issues, having served on the Code Review Committee and currently serving on the Code Enforcement Committee. A strong Code enforcement process is one of the single most important actions we can continue in order to strengthen our property values.
Both Vicki and I have been involved in Village committees, and have tried through the years to attend as many Commission and special meetings as possible. Recently, the Commission meetings have become very mean-spirited. Because of this, fewer residents attend. I would like to change that. There's no reason for people to be disrespectful to one another.
These are a few ideas that I believe encompass maintaining and preserving the unique qualities of Biscayne Park, while taking reasonable and responsible steps to ensure our future.
Respectfully submitted,
Your Neighbor,
Harvey Bilt
November 10, 2013
Confessions of an Art Collector
1) Came to believe I was powerless over my love of art.
My house is a testament to my loss of control when it comes to this addiction. I have more pictures and sculptures than wall and floor space. I have a very large painted panel I'm having to give away, because it turned out to be too big to fit properly in the house. I offered it to the Village through Ana Garcia, but it seems she wasn't interested. I offered it to a non-profit I know, and they'll get back to me. I have sculptures inside and outside, too.
I think art is wonderful. It's captivating, it's stimulating, and it pervasively enriches. It does that for me, it does it for very many other people, and it does it in "public" settings. Many communities concertedly apply themselves to providing public enrichment through the acquisition and display of art. Sometimes those displays are contained in museums, and sometimes they are installations of outdoor sculpture. As I say, wonderful.
It occurred to me at some point that public art would be a great thing for us in the Village, too. I bounced the idea off some of my friends, and they agreed. It turns out they, too, are moved by art, and all of us recall with great affection other municipalities we know that feature public art for their residents and for visitors. Often enough, public art creates visitors.
So I found a piece of art we could get at a reasonable price, and my friends and I contributed the money to buy it. We donated it to the Village, and it sits today in "Griffing Park," the triangle of land bordered by 6th Avenue, Griffing Boulevard, and 15th Street. It's an aluminum sculpture shaped somewhat like the letter V, and it's perched on a concrete base. There is landscaping around it, and at one time, there was a light so it would be visible at night. I don't know what happened to the light.
The project seemed successful. A Commission accepted the piece, a combined sitting of three Boards agreed they wanted it and suggested where to display it, and almost all of the feedback has been positive. The only feedback that has not been positive has come from certain individuals who tend to complain either about almost everything or specifically about me. It's very few people. So we decided to try again.
This time, I found a more dramatic and impressive sculpture for not substantially more money than the first one. So in it's way, it is a better piece and a better deal. But it did cost more, and I could only go to the original wells, even including my own bank account, so many times. Where there had been eight contributors to the first piece, there are about 22 for the second. And most of the original eight are among the 22, present company included. The second piece has been approved by the Commission-- a different Commission-- and the piece has been paid for. We're waiting for delivery. I have no idea where this piece will go; I had no say over where the last one was placed. There has been talk, or speculation, or assumption that this one will go in the same piece of land as the first one. Could be. Not my end of things.
Frankly, I'd love to see us develop a serious commitment to public art in Biscayne Park. I envision public sculpture in many of our public green spaces, not at all to exclude the medians. Perhaps in time. And funding will be an issue. At some point, the donors will get tired, or tapped out, and we'll have to consider a real Village effort, maybe including a tiny yearly tax of $2-$5 per person to create an art fund. To be determined by some Commission.
In the past few years, I had the thought that it would be great to convert the blank wall on the street-facing side of the handball courts at the park to a mural. I talked this around in a limited way, and it turns out I wasn't the only person who thought that would be a good idea. In the meantime, Barbara Watts much more recently had the same idea. So she and Ana Garcia and I met to strategize how to find and fund a mural. Having done a bit of this already, I had some thoughts and suggestions for Barbara. But she had thoughts of her own, and she was not open to other ideas. She took over the effort and moved on, declining my help or participation. We finally arrived at a choice of mural design, which was gratifying. Over Barbara's objection, Village residents were allowed to have their preferred image (it happens to have been my own preference, too). The funding was in fact what I hoped for all along-- it will be the residents of the Village who will pay for most of it-- but I'm afraid that how this choice of funding was arrived at was handled so badly and ineptly that Barbara did not win enthusiasts. Rather, she offended everyone, even me. Barbara did not offend everyone single-handedly, of course. (Well, she did in her undying effort to advocate for the mural choice Village residents liked least.) She could not have done what she did without the active participation of a majority of Commissioners. In this case, she was able to engage Noah Jacobs and Bryan Cooper. The problem was what Steve Bernard, Bryan Cooper, and Gaspar Gonzalez call a bad "process." Except they only call it that if they're talking about me. None of them expressed complaints about Barbara's mammoth blunder.
But we will wind up with a mural at the recreation center. I'm sorry Barbara disagrees, but it's a very nice and pleasing image. It's a variety of locally seen birds. I think you'll like it. More of your neighbors preferred it than any of the other 10 choices. Supposedly, it will be complete by November 22, it will be "unveiled" at the 80th anniversary event, and you'll see the mural any time after that. I imagine you can see it in the process of creation in this 1-2 weeks before hoped-for completion. The muralist is Cecilia Lueza. I've spoken with her, and she seems like a very nice woman and accomplished artist. Check out her art at lueza.com. Go meet her. She also does outdoor sculpture (you bet I'm scheming), and much of it is very pleasing and completely appropriate for us. It's in a different league cost-wise than the other two, and the pieces are significantly larger. If you might like to contribute, let me know. It's never too soon to begin to take up a collection. If you're interested, let me know, and I'll send you e-mail photographs of the ones I like best.
"For The Best We Can Be"
My house is a testament to my loss of control when it comes to this addiction. I have more pictures and sculptures than wall and floor space. I have a very large painted panel I'm having to give away, because it turned out to be too big to fit properly in the house. I offered it to the Village through Ana Garcia, but it seems she wasn't interested. I offered it to a non-profit I know, and they'll get back to me. I have sculptures inside and outside, too.
I think art is wonderful. It's captivating, it's stimulating, and it pervasively enriches. It does that for me, it does it for very many other people, and it does it in "public" settings. Many communities concertedly apply themselves to providing public enrichment through the acquisition and display of art. Sometimes those displays are contained in museums, and sometimes they are installations of outdoor sculpture. As I say, wonderful.
It occurred to me at some point that public art would be a great thing for us in the Village, too. I bounced the idea off some of my friends, and they agreed. It turns out they, too, are moved by art, and all of us recall with great affection other municipalities we know that feature public art for their residents and for visitors. Often enough, public art creates visitors.
So I found a piece of art we could get at a reasonable price, and my friends and I contributed the money to buy it. We donated it to the Village, and it sits today in "Griffing Park," the triangle of land bordered by 6th Avenue, Griffing Boulevard, and 15th Street. It's an aluminum sculpture shaped somewhat like the letter V, and it's perched on a concrete base. There is landscaping around it, and at one time, there was a light so it would be visible at night. I don't know what happened to the light.
The project seemed successful. A Commission accepted the piece, a combined sitting of three Boards agreed they wanted it and suggested where to display it, and almost all of the feedback has been positive. The only feedback that has not been positive has come from certain individuals who tend to complain either about almost everything or specifically about me. It's very few people. So we decided to try again.
This time, I found a more dramatic and impressive sculpture for not substantially more money than the first one. So in it's way, it is a better piece and a better deal. But it did cost more, and I could only go to the original wells, even including my own bank account, so many times. Where there had been eight contributors to the first piece, there are about 22 for the second. And most of the original eight are among the 22, present company included. The second piece has been approved by the Commission-- a different Commission-- and the piece has been paid for. We're waiting for delivery. I have no idea where this piece will go; I had no say over where the last one was placed. There has been talk, or speculation, or assumption that this one will go in the same piece of land as the first one. Could be. Not my end of things.
Frankly, I'd love to see us develop a serious commitment to public art in Biscayne Park. I envision public sculpture in many of our public green spaces, not at all to exclude the medians. Perhaps in time. And funding will be an issue. At some point, the donors will get tired, or tapped out, and we'll have to consider a real Village effort, maybe including a tiny yearly tax of $2-$5 per person to create an art fund. To be determined by some Commission.
In the past few years, I had the thought that it would be great to convert the blank wall on the street-facing side of the handball courts at the park to a mural. I talked this around in a limited way, and it turns out I wasn't the only person who thought that would be a good idea. In the meantime, Barbara Watts much more recently had the same idea. So she and Ana Garcia and I met to strategize how to find and fund a mural. Having done a bit of this already, I had some thoughts and suggestions for Barbara. But she had thoughts of her own, and she was not open to other ideas. She took over the effort and moved on, declining my help or participation. We finally arrived at a choice of mural design, which was gratifying. Over Barbara's objection, Village residents were allowed to have their preferred image (it happens to have been my own preference, too). The funding was in fact what I hoped for all along-- it will be the residents of the Village who will pay for most of it-- but I'm afraid that how this choice of funding was arrived at was handled so badly and ineptly that Barbara did not win enthusiasts. Rather, she offended everyone, even me. Barbara did not offend everyone single-handedly, of course. (Well, she did in her undying effort to advocate for the mural choice Village residents liked least.) She could not have done what she did without the active participation of a majority of Commissioners. In this case, she was able to engage Noah Jacobs and Bryan Cooper. The problem was what Steve Bernard, Bryan Cooper, and Gaspar Gonzalez call a bad "process." Except they only call it that if they're talking about me. None of them expressed complaints about Barbara's mammoth blunder.
But we will wind up with a mural at the recreation center. I'm sorry Barbara disagrees, but it's a very nice and pleasing image. It's a variety of locally seen birds. I think you'll like it. More of your neighbors preferred it than any of the other 10 choices. Supposedly, it will be complete by November 22, it will be "unveiled" at the 80th anniversary event, and you'll see the mural any time after that. I imagine you can see it in the process of creation in this 1-2 weeks before hoped-for completion. The muralist is Cecilia Lueza. I've spoken with her, and she seems like a very nice woman and accomplished artist. Check out her art at lueza.com. Go meet her. She also does outdoor sculpture (you bet I'm scheming), and much of it is very pleasing and completely appropriate for us. It's in a different league cost-wise than the other two, and the pieces are significantly larger. If you might like to contribute, let me know. It's never too soon to begin to take up a collection. If you're interested, let me know, and I'll send you e-mail photographs of the ones I like best.
"For The Best We Can Be"
Friday, November 8, 2013
We can do better.
Dear
Neighbors and Friends:
We can do better. I am running
for the Village Commission because I believe that we must move past the discord
that has turned all too personal over the course of the past few years.
The level of animosity among certain elected officials and residents is holding
back our community. While disagreement is inevitable, the discussion
should not be acrimonious. Taking a hard line and insulting those with
opposing views takes little effort. We need elected officials and
community leaders that are capable and willing to find common ground.
Working together, we can resolve the issues and move the Village forward.
For those of you who I have not yet
had the pleasure to meet, I am a partner at the law firm of Shutts & Bowen,
LLP in Miami. I have been practicing law for over 10 years. I
practice almost exclusively in the area of municipal land use and zoning
law. Since moving to the Village in 2009, I have been involved in our
community. For the past few years, I have been the Chair of the Code
Compliance Board and Vice-Chair of the Code Review Committee. Using my
professional experience, I am capable and willing to work on your behalf as a
Village Commissioner.
So, let’s get to some of the issues.
Annexation:
There has been talk about the
financial viability of the Village and the need to annex land to solve the
Village’s budget issues. I agree that annexation needs to be considered
and pursued because it is the single act that would most significantly increase
the Village’s revenue and improve the ability to replenish our reserves.
That said, it is a significant act that will likely change our Village.
Before going further down the road of annexation, we should make certain that
we have the necessary information to make an informed decision. We have
some of that information already, however, more information is needed.
For example, the Village’s planning consultant issued a report regarding the
annexation of a particular segment of the overall unincorporated area east of
the FEC railway, which includes both residential and commercial uses.
More recently, the Commission was scheduled to consider a much smaller
commercial area for annexation. Obviously, the size of the area and the uses
contained in the area have a direct impact on the revenue gained and the increased costs necessary to maintain the annexed area.
I would like to see our planning consultant amend its report to outline a few
different scenarios. We can then weigh the pros and cons of each scenario,
and make an informed decision to move forward. In light of the fact that
the City of North Miami has already submitted its request to annex the same
land, I acknowledge that the window of opportunity may be short. Although
we must act quickly, we must also act with a clear vision. Obviously,
there is also the possibility that even if we pursued annexation, we would not
be successful for multiple reasons. In addition to competing with the
City of North Miami for the same land, it is possible that voters within the
land to be annexed would have to approve the annexation. Because of these
uncertainties, we need a back-up plan. Thus, regardless of whether we
ultimately decide to pursue annexation, we need to continue looking at other means to
generate revenue, as well as cost saving measures.
Village Hall:
We have a beautiful, historic log
cabin that is in need of substantial and costly repairs. We must find the
resources to make those repairs. To that end, we need to aggressively
seek grants and other funding sources. Our requests for funding need to
be professionally prepared and presented to improve our chances of being
awarded funds. With that said, the log cabin is not sufficient to house
our administration. In my view, it should be restored for community
functions and other activities. We need to look at other options for our
administration, including the possibility of developing the vacant land
adjacent to the log cabin. A small limited commercial component that is
carefully planned and designed should be on the table and considered, among
other options. Using that land, we may have the opportunity to gain new
Village administration space and bring in enough funds to repair the log cabin.
School:
I am not opposed to having a limited
pre-school within the Church of Resurrection property, subject to the conditions
that have been proposed by our Village planning consultant. However, we
should go a few steps further. We need to safeguard the interests of
neighboring property owners. One of the more critical issues with the
school is clearly traffic and parking. Although the applicant has hired a
very reputable traffic consultant to analyze these issues, that consultant
works for the school. I would have liked to see the Village hire its own
independent traffic engineer to review the applicant’s traffic study. It
is not uncommon for an applicant to pay for such a study. In fact, many
smaller municipalities have cost recovery ordinances that allow for the
recovery of costs incurred in the review of development applications,
particularly those municipalities with outside consultants (e.g., planners,
engineers). We need to adopt such an ordinance, particularly if we are
going to annex commercial property on the east side of the FEC railway.
The other issue pertains to the overall impact of the school on the
community. The majority of the larger municipalities impose impact fees
on development applications to help with roadway and other public
improvements. Those smaller municipalities that do not have impact fee
ordinances often rely upon financial contributions proffered by applicants in
the development review process, which are then incorporated into the
development agreement. I would have
liked to see such a proffer here.
Code Compliance:
We need to continue our efforts to
educate the community on our code of ordinances and clean-up our community
through a fair, but firm, code compliance process. In most instances, our
residents respond to courtesy notices and compliance is achieved. For those
who do not, we must enforce our rules. The desirability of a community is
directly linked to its appearance and tidiness. Desirability equates to
an increase in property values. Increase in property values means more
revenue for the Village.
There are other issues. For
example, median improvement and other beautification projects should be
discussed and properly planned rather than carried out piecemeal.
I humbly ask you for your vote on
December 3rd. We can do better, and if I am elected, we will do better.
Sincerely,
David Coviello
David Coviello
Please do not hesitate to email me
at lawdjc@gmail.com or call me at 786-385-8953 if you
would like to discuss the issues and my campaign.
Our New Anti-Gun Resolution, Just For The Record
I told you in the last post that a large number of matters were passed without comment in the Consent Agenda. Frankly, I suspect no one had the stomach for any more discussion, about anything.
During public comment before the main agenda, Linda Dillon spoke to say she was still not satisfied with what I gather was a reworked version of Noah Jacobs' obsession with a resolution against guns. This item was part of the Consent Agenda. It appears Noah himself shoots from the hip, and one of the people who caught a bullet was Linda. But Noah is in rapid fire mode, and he doesn't seem much concerned with Linda and her passions.
Let me be crystal clear about my own sentiments in this area. I am anti-gun. Virulently so. I have had a number of debates with Linda, who is a gun and shooting enthusiast (to say the least), about this. I wish no civilians had guns.
Noah's proposal, in the name of the Village (a formal Commission/Village "Resolution," not just the statement of Noah's own opinion), was that gun sales and marketing should be "more responsible." Noah's original proposal was more forceful and encouraged more active inhibition of gun availability. I gather he softened his proposal under pressure from Linda. Noah seems now to have reduced his resolution to the most meaningless statement possible. Gun sales and marketing, as is true of pretty much everything there is, should be "more responsible." You can't really argue with that. You can't do much of anything with it.
Here's the problem: Linda, a BP resident who is far more stable and devoted in the neighborhood than Noah is, doesn't approve of Noah's resolution. Many BP residents, I'm sorry to say, own and keep guns. There are no sales, and there is no marketing, of guns, or anything else, in BP. So Noah is proposing something that offends many BP residents, and has no local meaning or applicability. To the extent that the Resolution's sentiment pleases some BP residents, like me, it doesn't go anywhere. It merely gratuitously affronts other BP residents for no gain. No one is meaningfully gratified (even including virulent anti-gun people, like me), and others are simply annoyed.
So Noah got himself a silencer, and he had his little pet passed without comment on the Consent Agenda. This was expedient. It was not nice, it was not respectful, it was not graceful, and ultimately, it was empty and useless. But I have a feeling it will find its way onto Noah's resume, which may be the only thing this was about anyway.
During public comment before the main agenda, Linda Dillon spoke to say she was still not satisfied with what I gather was a reworked version of Noah Jacobs' obsession with a resolution against guns. This item was part of the Consent Agenda. It appears Noah himself shoots from the hip, and one of the people who caught a bullet was Linda. But Noah is in rapid fire mode, and he doesn't seem much concerned with Linda and her passions.
Let me be crystal clear about my own sentiments in this area. I am anti-gun. Virulently so. I have had a number of debates with Linda, who is a gun and shooting enthusiast (to say the least), about this. I wish no civilians had guns.
Noah's proposal, in the name of the Village (a formal Commission/Village "Resolution," not just the statement of Noah's own opinion), was that gun sales and marketing should be "more responsible." Noah's original proposal was more forceful and encouraged more active inhibition of gun availability. I gather he softened his proposal under pressure from Linda. Noah seems now to have reduced his resolution to the most meaningless statement possible. Gun sales and marketing, as is true of pretty much everything there is, should be "more responsible." You can't really argue with that. You can't do much of anything with it.
Here's the problem: Linda, a BP resident who is far more stable and devoted in the neighborhood than Noah is, doesn't approve of Noah's resolution. Many BP residents, I'm sorry to say, own and keep guns. There are no sales, and there is no marketing, of guns, or anything else, in BP. So Noah is proposing something that offends many BP residents, and has no local meaning or applicability. To the extent that the Resolution's sentiment pleases some BP residents, like me, it doesn't go anywhere. It merely gratuitously affronts other BP residents for no gain. No one is meaningfully gratified (even including virulent anti-gun people, like me), and others are simply annoyed.
So Noah got himself a silencer, and he had his little pet passed without comment on the Consent Agenda. This was expedient. It was not nice, it was not respectful, it was not graceful, and ultimately, it was empty and useless. But I have a feeling it will find its way onto Noah's resume, which may be the only thing this was about anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)