Annexation. Chapter Whatever.

The purpose of this post is to stimulate discussion on annexation.  The current Commission has decided to proceed with an application, over the objections of some Village residents.  (Of course, deciding not to proceed would have been, and previously was, over the objections of some residents, too, so it's not clear what should be implied by the presence of objection.)  Some residents feel their opinions have not been "heard," since their preference was not acceded-to, and some feel annexation should be a decision made by vote/referendum.  There is no precedent for this theory, but it has been offered by some of our neighbors.  This theory becomes a slippery slope, and it can lead to a suggestion to scrap the idea of elected representatives, and just have all matters decided by a "town meeting" style of governance.  In any event, to take into account the complaint of some residents who feel their opinions have not been heard (obeyed), and their wish to explain annexation their own way, I am presenting my view here.  I hope that those who disagree will feel more than free to express their views.  As always, they can do so by using the comment section, or they can take a whole post for themselves.  What follows is my pro-annexation argument.  Please give us a good, honest anti-annexation argument, if there is one.



We have applied to the County to annex a mixed use tract between the tracks and Biscayne Boulevard.  CNM applied to annex this tract, too.

Our application was faulty, owing to a poor job done by our planner, and it was returned to be corrected.  In part, the planner was caught between one direction, not to apply, and another, to apply.

Last year, application was simple and very cheap.  The then Commission didn't want to apply, and the simple, cheap opportunity was squandered.  Now, with development in the area in question, the task is much more complicated and considerably more expensive.  But a majority of the new Commission feels annexation is important.  That majority is three Commissioners, all of whom were elected this past December.  Two of them stated openly that they favored annexation.  The third said he hadn't yet decided.  About a month after he was elected, with no more information than he had before, he decided.

Annexation is about two things.  The first is revenue.  Our prior Village Manager, our County Commissioner, and several of the applicants for Village Manager, including all three finalists, openly felt we should annex.  We need, as everyone said, to "diversify" our revenue source.  One of our recent Commissioners, Bryan Cooper, used to rail about the need to diversify.  He used to drone about "biodiversity."  He imagined that if we had a "monoculture" of oaks, we would be vulnerable to any disease or condition that would blight the oaks, leaving us with no canopy at all.  Oaks are nice, and make a nice canopy?  No matter, insisted Bryan.  It's imprudent to try to maintain a monoculture.  Any financial advisor will say the same thing.  It doesn't matter how good a particular investment is.  It's irresponsible to put all of one's eggs in one basket.

I know how Bryan felt about trees, and I don't know what his investment habits are, but he sure couldn't see how dangerous was "monoculture" was when it came to support of the Village.  He encouraged his colleagues to rely on monoculture to provide revenue for the Village, even as monoculture showed increasing signs of failing us.  Very simply, the Village needs adequate revenue, and its one source, residential property and utility taxes, do not provide it.  For a brief space of time, this source seemed to be productive, but only when property values were escalating dramatically.  Then, the bubble burst, the reserve went away, and the Village never did meet its own needs.  It never even met them when it had the money.

Recommending against annexation springs either from failure to understand the Village's fiscal condition, or a concerted intention to force the Village to unincorporate.  Arguments as to why the Village does not need to annex other land use tracts include such assertions as that some Village residents, and all experts, are either lying to the rest of the Village residents or are being manipulative, and that the Village's fiscal condition will somehow correct itself.  The fantasy regarding the latter is that property values will rise again, and that property tax revenue will provide adequately for the Village.  What gets lost in this speculation is that it is very iffy and unreliable, and that at best, the Village never provided adequately for itself anyway, even when property values were in fact rising dramatically and unsustainably.

The other curiosity connected with imagining that rising values will result in rising, and imagined adequate, tax revenues is that such a scheme depends on sales of property.  To benefit from a system like this, we would wind up having to hope a good proportion of our neighbors move away.  This is certainly impolite, at best.  Very recently, I got an e-advertisement from a relator who was proud of a recent sale.  The realtor asked recipients of the ad to see if any other Village residents might be induced to sell their homes (and move away), clearly for the benefit of the realtor.  That's the politically incorrect position in which we would all be placed, if we imagined using increasing tax revenues derived from increased valuations to try to solve our fiscal problems.

The other reason to annex is to control and improve what borders us.  To the extent that some of us complain about what's on "the other side of the tracks," our only opportunity to influence it is to make it part of the Park, and to subject it to our Codes, and our enforcement.

Clearly, annexation changes the Village.  It makes us bigger, and it changes our mission.  We are no longer "100% residential," although the "historic Biscayne Park" upside down triangle is almost 100% residential.  Oddly, many of the people who complain most vociferously about annexing a mixed use tract across the track did not complain either about the existence of the church or the expansion of it to include a school.  Some of them even suggested erecting a building on Village property, and dedicating it for retail space to be rented out.

Ben and Jerry's, that quaint, home-spun ice cream maker, is no longer owned by Ben or Jerry.  They sold out to a Dutch conglomerate, and the CEO is some Dutch guy.  Isn't Ben and Jerry's still Ben and Jerry's to you, when you want good ice cream?  And wouldn't you still think the company somewhat quaint if they owned the Dutch conglomerate, instead of the other way around?  Maybe you do anyway.  Maybe you didn't know they sold themselves to a Dutch conglomerate.  What if they invested, by buying a Dutch conglomerate, so they could continue to afford to make and sell their good old B&J ice cream at a price you can afford to pay?

The fiscal consequences of annexation have received study.  There are projections, and there is no reason not to consider them reliable.  They make clear that with proper maintenance from us, including increases in our police force, there is a sizable net revenue gain to the Village.  The projections, which are estimates, suggest that at a millage of about 9.5, the net gain to the Village is about $550K.  That includes ad valorem taxes, non ad valorem taxes, and a decrement for the expenses of administering the area.

This leads to the last topic related to annexation, and the complaint made by some.  If we annex, the taxes paid by property owners in the annexed area will increase.  Yes, they will.  Services will also increase.  So will prestige.  (One apartment building already calls itself "Biscayne Park Apartments.")  But there isn't much argument against our annexing this tract, out of some difficult-to-understand wish to spare the tax-payers of this tract from paying higher taxes.  They will pay higher taxes anyway.  If we don't annex this tract, North Miami will.  So one way or the other, taxes will increase in this area.  The only question is which municipality, we or CNM, will receive the revenue.  My vote is for us.

If there is a worthy argument to be made against annexation, I very much hope someone will make it.  This blog is an open venue.  If you need a whole post, and you're not already a guest author, let me know.  You will be.