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?
No comments:
Post a Comment