From Liset's Mouth to Your Ears: Peerby.com. And You Might Want to Get Naked.

My brother put me onto this site.  Apparently, he knows it and likes it.  So I joined.  Evidently, Peerby wishes you would, too.

Hi Fred,

Thanks for trying out Peerby! My name is Liset and I wanted to reach out to you personally, because you are one of the first people in your neighborhood to join our community. Congratulations, this makes you a Peerby Pioneer!

Being a pioneer can be lonely at times and Peerby works best when your neighbors become members too. We would love to spread the Peerby sharing spirit all over the world but for that we need help from brave Peerby Pioneers like you. Do you like to help spreading the love and make your neighborhood an even better place to live?

Here’s some inspiration what you could write:

Hey guys! Need something you don't want to buy? Why not borrow it from your neighbors for free? Join me at http://Peerby.com

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or any feedback for us. I would love to hear from you!

Sunny greetings,

Liset

PS: I don't know why Liset would love to hear from me.  I'm not sure what she has in mind for me to "borrow."  But maybe she'd be just as happy to hear from you.

One of my BP friends put me onto a very interesting wine distributor.  It's called NakedWines.  Their site is nakedwines.com.

NakedWines claims that costs of wines are inflated by too many middlemen, and they endeavor to cut them out of the deal.  The serve as the one link between the consumer and the vintner.  They essentially commission vintners, who are encouraged to make the best wines they can, and NakedWines creates a population of consumers for these unique wines.  In fact, NakedWines says that the wines they commission are not available to anyone but NakedWines members.

I think my friend suggested me to NakedWines, because NakedWines sent me a $100 introductory voucher.  The offer was on a case of wine (12 bottles), with an extra three bottles added.  So 15 bottles of supposedly exceptional wine.  NakedWines says the "retail" value of this case would be around $350.  Their normal discount price is $169.99.  My voucher brings that down to $69.99.  Shipping is $9.99.  So I'm supposedly getting $350 (plus shipping) worth of wine for just under $80.  Thereafter, I'm back to their normal discount pricing of somewhere around $170 per case.  Plus $10 shipping.  They never send you any wine you don't specifically request.  They have a site, you go on it, you choose what you want (if you want anything), and they send it.  If you don't ask, they don't send.

The intended level of involvement in NakedWines is what they call their "Angels."  I'm not an Angel.  Yet.  I have to wait for an opening, maybe in a month or so.  Angels are charged $40 a month, every month.  This creates a bank which NakedWines uses to underwrite the vintners, and which represents the Angels' advance investment in purchasing wine.  Whenever I want wine, the money that will pay for it will come initially from my NakedWines bank.  Only if I want more wine than I've paid for in advance (at $40 a month) will NakedWines further bill my credit card.  And if I ever no longer want to be a NakedWines member/Angel, they will return to me whatever is in my NakedWines bank.

I've had some of these wines at my friend's house, and I can attest that they are, in fact, excellent.  So I joined.  If you want to do this yourself, let me know, and I'll sponsor you.  I assume that will mean you'll get a voucher, too.

Tom Ferstle-A letter of concern about proposed changes to Village Charter

First of all, I'd like to thank you, Fred, for the invitation to add to the blog. I don't know who is reading it, but I would like to contribute to a responsible discussion about issues of concern to all of us who love living in Biscayne Park as much as my family and my friends do. I had the opportunity to attend tonight's meeting on this same issue-and I know that my flyer was taken to task as misrepresenting the issues that the board was considering-but I think that perhaps that impression was taken from having only read the title of the flyer-"The City of Biscayne Park Want to Destroy Your Front Yard." Admittedly that is a flamethrower of a title! But, I was afraid no one would read it if they thought it was a Domino's coupon or a church bingo announcement. The main thrust of my argument and complaint was that I thought that the language of the proposed changes really didn't address the intent of the Chapter's original intent that seems to be to be about safe traffic through the village. Anyways, I wrote a letter explaining this to the Commissioners and our Mayor, and Fred graciously offered me an invitation to post it here, so I do without further comment and I await yours. Like most of the endeavors in my life, I find out how much I don't know shortly after I begin, and I suspect this experience will be similar.

January 24, 2015

Subject: Proposed changes to Ch. 5 of Charter and Ordnances

Ref: January 26^th meeting at 7PM for citizen input

Dear Mayor and Commissioners,

  I am contacting you in regards to the proposed changes to Ch. 5 of the Village Charter. Since last weeks meeting in regards to this matter I have had a little more time to study the proposed changes in the document. I have argued in the attached flyer that the Board seems to have gone off track from the original intent of the particular chapters concerns which dealt primarily with concerns about safe traffic through the park (see Section 5.1.1-Purpose). Instead, the Board(s) seems to have become preoccupied with aesthetic concerns about the types of foliage that may or may not be put in someone’s front yard. For example, when a Board(s) that supposedly is interested in making sure that a clear line of sight is available in the “right of way” becomes mired down in specifying which types of organic mulch are permissible, it is evident that the train has left the tracks.

I would like to see the original language of the section (5.3.4.b) preserved in regards to “Landscaping.” This language is clearly focused on the issue of safety in regards to line of sight-“clear zone,” and it allows for deviances for specific trees, shrubs, etc., that are maintained in such a way that common sense can be used in determining whether or not the landscaping constitutes a “traffic hazard.”

While I walked around our Village yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak with four of our police officers-partly to inform them what I was doing, but also to ask them if they had been consulted by either of the Board(s) about safety issues in re-drafting this section of the Ordinances. None of the officers I spoke to had been asked for their opinion. One officer informed me that he had recently attended training to do the kind of enforcement duties regarding existing codes. I would be very comfortable allowing the police or other code enforcement officers to determine the “safety” concerns regarding specific landscaping on existing properties.

I am afraid that the proposed language will place an undue hardship on many of our neighbors and citizens (and me, too!). Please do not approve the proposed language, and insist that the Board(s) return to the drawing board and preserve the intent of the Chapter to address its original function-to ensure the safe passage of vehicles and pedestrian traffic in the Park.

One of the great difficulties in drafting any kind of rules is the possibility of unseen consequences. There is a temptation to try to use language in such a way as to prohibit any possible misunderstandings, but the nature of language itself and perhaps the beauty of it is that everyone understands things differently. I believe and support the Board(s) attempt to clarify and renew the health of our Village Charter, however, in this specific case it may be best to leave this section as it is.  Allow our code enforcement officers to use their own discretion and work with individual homeowners when a property presents a safety hazard, and allow the wonderful and beautiful diversity of our many different landscapes and properties to be preserved.

Sincerely,

Tom Ferstle

11220 NE 8^th Ct

Biscayne Park, Fl 33161

954-604-9175

"All the Best?"

A Message From Noah Jacobs Recent Important Events in Our Neighborhood January, 2015

Governance is 1 part stewardship, 2 parts representation   (Interesting calculation Noah has done.) First of all I want to wish all of you a very belated happy and healthy new year. 2015 has brought some significant, healthy and optimistic changes for me and my immediate family. I hope that you and your respective families are also starting the year on the right note.  I'd like to take a moment of your time to tell you a bit of what is going on in the community. This afternoon, I got a flyer on my door as many of you might have. It appears that the new Code Review Board has proposed some significant changes to Chapter 5 (section 5.3.4)of the Code. As it is currently written, the flyer states (and I agree) that the purpose of chapter 5 is to guarantee the safety of both the individual citizen, and the safe passage and usage of cars, and other vehicles in our community. The changes being suggested by the Code Review Board no longer adhere to the spirit of the original code.  (We'll find out shortly what Noah's agreement sounds like.) To view the original code click here. If you were unable to take part in the workshop, (Ashamedly, I have to say I was not there) I urge you to go to theVillage website. While these might not be the final changes made to the code, these are examples of possible changes the Board might put forward.  (So Noah is ashamed to say he didn't bother to come to the meeting, and the proposed changes might not even be final.) Commissioner Jonas is now going around talking to anyone and everyone who will listen (which by his admission is not many) about how much he wants to get things done, as compared to the previous administration. Commissioner Jonas is absolutely correct. The current Commission is moving forward on a good bit of legislation.  (Interesting link.  Feel free to check it out.  What Noah suggests is a limitation on my part regarding whom I can find to listen to what I have to say was actually a failure on the part of people like Noah to come talk to me about concerns, ask questions, and have a discussion.  Apparently, that does not prevent Noah from complaining that I won't listen.) Let's review some of the "achievements" they have secured: They have restricted your ability to have leisure craft in the Park.  (Here's the first example of Noah's abdication of his agreement with the balance of responsibilities described in the flyer he endorses.  Noah remembers the responsibility to look out for the interests of individual residents, but he has forgotten the responsibility to look out for the needs of the neighborhood as a whole.) They voted to outsource some of our services, disregarding an overwhelming number of residents who expressed a desire to keep those services in house.   (Ah, yes, that balance of stewardship and representation of individuals' wishes.)             There was even a significant problem within our police department, and we as residents were only notified by outside media sources (unless of course you went to the police department and noticed the door locked and no response to knocking). The administration could have put something out reassuring us that all police shifts were covered. I hear there is even a report that was created to explain what the problem was. I wonder when that report is going to see the light of day.  (Noah has no use for anyone else's determination and management of priorities. It appears Galileo was wrong when he suggested what rotated around what, or whom.) Heck, we got a wonderful grant, (h/t ((hat tip)) Mayor Coviello)for the renovation of the log cabin of $1 million dollars from the State. Unfortunately, whoever was responsible for writing the RFP (Request for Proposal) did not put a cap on the cost. The Commission ended up accepting a proposal that could cost as much as $1.4 million dollars.  (If Noah is suggesting it's too bad we could not have gotten more commitment and representation from the prior Commission and Mayor, I agree.  The result of capping the costs would have been, or would be, that we do less of the work.  And we could.  That was discussed at a recent Commission meeting.  [I don't think Noah was there.]  We decided it was best to do all the work now, and raise the money later.  Apparently, Noah disagrees.  That's fine.) Early in 2011, Commissioner Anderson argued with me about a public computer in the rec center because he felt a $70 ink cartridge was a frivolous expense. Forgive me, but I think a $400,000.00 obligation is a bit more worrisome.   (Noah has made clear what seems prudent to him: doing nothing.) With a record like this, I wouldn't be so eager to "get things done".  (Noah took two years to make clear that his preference is, as he now reiterates, not to get anything done.  That turned out not to be a winning approach for him in the last election.  But he hasn't changed his feeling about it.) Transparency and responsiveness to the citizens of our great Village have not been a strong point in the last year. Hopefully, the Commissioners can show that they are responsive to the will of the people in regard to code and a myriad of other issues, and not just doing something to "get it done".  (The current Commission has been eminently transparent.  "Responsive" to what?  Whims, or the demands of responsible stewardship?) All the best,  (Of what?) Noah PS: Please feel free to share this email.

musimelange. My Deep Apologies.

As I sat through musimelange this week, and drank in the experience, I realized I had done a terrible disservice by not publicizing this.  The room was not full, and it very much should have been.

Musimelange is the concept of Anne Chicheportiche.  Anne is a professional violinist, a sometimes member of the Miami Symphony Orchestra, and the wife of MiSO's concertmaster, Daniel Andai.  This is my third year attending musimelange offerings.  They are musical events, and they occur on about four Monday evenings per year.  When I started attending, the musicians or soloists were often whoever was the guest soloist from the MiSO concert the immediately preceding weekend.  At this point, the soloists are often enough unconnected to the MiSO concert.

Musimelange occurs at a venue called the M Building.  It's at the corner of NW 2nd Avenue and 30th Street, within the Wynwood district.  I have no idea what the purpose of this building is supposed to be, but it appears it's likely a function hall of some sort.  There is an ongoing art display there, but the pieces are very unusual, there is no information about them, and they are not for sale.  The building appears to be set up like a house, with various rooms that correspond almost to those of a residence.  There is also a nice size, well-landscaped, and enclosed yard to the side of the property.

The musimelange event is an evening of food and music.  Anne puts together the program for each evening.  Generally, there is a selection of wines, and sometimes beers, of which you can have as much as you like.  A gourmet caterer Anne engages provides food, and the food is presented in individual servings.  Again, you take as much/many as you like.  None of the dishes constitutes a full meal, but all of them together are filling enough.

Events are called for 7:30, which is when you can come from the anterooms to the main event room.  The latter appears to be a salon-like room letting out to the garden.  An extension of that room is set up as a small kitchen, which is where the food service is.  Wine is served on the outside patio, which also features many pieces of outdoor furniture, in case you want to sit out for a while.

Once everyone has had his and her fill of food, the music begins.  This is a very intimate setting.  Guests mingle with each other, with Anne and other program organizers and helpers, and even with musicians and performers.  The performance room is set with chairs and couches, and it looks like there's room for maybe 30 or so people.  That's it.  It's a very small chamber arrangement, and the concert is just for you.  It has a feel as if someone performed a concert for you at your house.

The music is top, top shelf.  I have seen many performers there over the past three years.  This past Monday, the most featured performer was a guy named Corky Siegel.  This was the third time I've seen him: twice at musimelange, and once as the guest soloist at MiSO.  Corky plays two instruments, sometimes simultaneously.  He plays harmonica and blues style piano.  He's amazing.  Not to lapse into adulation of MiSO, but what symphony orchestra creates a program to feature a harmonica and blues piano player?  And in chamber concert, Corky is total entertainment.  He's 71, energetic, and he has a great way with his audience.  Everything he and the group did on Monday was blues-inspired.  His musical partners included Matthew Santos, whose guitar-playing and singing style are reminiscent to me of the better known of the modern young performers, like Ben Harper, Jason Mraz, and some others.  He has a gorgeous voice, and his song-writing is entrancing.  This was my second time hearing Matthew, also at musimelange.  Joining them was Chihsuan Yang.  I've heard her at musimelange, too.  She plays classical violin, as well as a single-stringed Chinese instrument of which I don't know the name.  And she provides back-up vocals.  Spectacular.  Three performers were advertised, but four people played.  Dani Andai joined, and he was as amazing as he always is.  He had done a magnificent solo at the MiSO concert the night before, too.  The musimelange concert was perfect, and a better musical time could not have been had.  The food and wine were great as well.  Dessert, served after the music, was chocolate mousse.

So we're talking about a decent amount of wonderful food (a lot of food, if you keep taking more), essentially all the wine you want (the wine was very, very good, and all French this time), and a concert you would never have a chance to experience in regular life.  Unless you have very rich friends who like to put on very special events.  If you buy your ticket at the door, it costs $65.  If you have a little bit of foresight, you can buy it online for $55.  If you sign up, as I did, for all four offerings this year, it's $50 per ticket.  This is money extremely well spent.  And for a souvenir, I got one CD of Matthew Santos and one of Chihsuan Yang, for $10 each.

If this interests you, and it should, you can find musimelange at musimelange.com.  You'll see what the rest of this year's calendar looks like, and you can buy tickets.  I will tell you that I have attended all or almost all of these concerts for two years (this makes my third year), and I have never heard one that was less than perfect.  The food and alcohol are also always terrific.  Do yourself a favor.

Swales… Who Knew?

Last night a workshop was held at the Rec Center hosted by the Code Review and Park and Parkways Boards. Topic… Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Swales But Were Afraid To Ask.

All kidding aside, this was to discuss proposed changes to our code regarding swale use, definitions, and prohibited uses along with several other issues. About 34 residents showed up which was a refreshing sign. It is vital moving forward for us all to understand the need to get information DIRECTLY FROM THE SOURCE instead of relying on the opinions of others not specifically involved in the process. This has, in the past lead to unnecessary conflict and innuendo. Facts trump opinions every time! This is why this workshop was sponsored by the Village and these two boards as it should be.

There was some degree of confusion as to what proposed actions (if any) would actually be, when they would take place and really the very purpose of these potential changes.  My observation was that the residents who spoke didn’t seem to favor the proposed clear zones and/or the tiered 3 zone creation concept. Personal examples were offered and why this would cause a hardship for each resident. Instead of offering any further personal opinions on the meeting I have provided a video of the excerpts. Aside- must remember to bring the bigger battery next time- end aside.

Link is located here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpnABnXkc9I

As I was stuck behind the camera during the meeting, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the board members for their time and efforts towards any and all possible improvements for our Village. 

Milton Hunter

Resident   

Art For Art's Sake. But Whose Art? And Who's Art?

In entreating around looking for donations for the "Ballplayer" sculpture, Chuck Ross and I have encountered a very unexpected source of resistance.

Biscayne Park is a unique neighborhood, and it has a unique population.  Chuck and I have knocked on a lot of doors looking for donations, and we have been surprised with what frequency the person who lives in the home we visit declares that he or she, him- or herself, is an artist.

How fortuitous, Chuck and I initially imagined, to find a neighbor who, seemingly by definition, would be most understanding, most appreciative, and most sympathetic to our mission.  We would have expected to get the largest, or at least most enthusiastic, donations from artists.  If they're "starving artists," we would figure on any loose change the art-lover (art-creator!) could scrounge up.

Not one bit.  Oddly, we were the most unceremoniously rejected by artists who live here.  We almost never received a donation from an artist.  I say "almost," because one local artist did give us a very small donation, grudgingly, at the insistence of his wife, after he himself had refused.

So the question is, what gives?  How are these people, who should "get it" more than anyone else, so unwilling to participate in and contribute to public art here?  And not to pick on Barbara Watts (although why not?), but she, the self-proclaimed art historian, has also been almost unwavering in dismissing, demeaning, and rejecting public art in BP.  Sure, she seems to know nothing about any art that was not made in the XVth Century, but still, shouldn't she be sympathetic to the concept of expression through art, and public beautification through public display of art?  Maybe she has no feeling for any art that has not been declared a "masterpiece" by some expert.  It's not the trivial or modestly decorative XVth Century works that have survived for 600 years.  Does she think all art, or all legitimate and worthy art, is only grand?

Back to the question at hand, why are those who should be most sensitive, most appreciative, and most supportive the ones who are most dismissive, most demeaning, and least interested?  I'll tell you now, Chuck has no idea.  He was at a complete loss for an explanation.  I was thinking that maybe the driving factor is jealousy.  If the Village wants public art, and if Chuck and I are taking donations to acquire some, why didn't we approach our own local artists for public art?  What are they, chopped liver? 

Setting aside that we have no idea our neighbors are artists, unless they find a way to publicize the fact, I would count that complaint as a fair one.  A similar complaint is that seemingly, Chuck and I have chosen pieces for the neighborhood, and no one else was consulted.  That's not strictly true, but let's use it, too, as a focus of criticism. 

But here's the problem.  When an artist neighbor tells us he or she is an artist, we show great enthusiasm, and we ask them if they have something, or would like to produce something, the Village can buy from them or that they would like to donate to the Village.  We have had no takers, except a possible "I'll think about it" from the artist neighbor who gave the Village the small donation.  Similarly, when someone says they don't dislike the idea of public art, but they do dislike the pieces the Village has acquired, we always ask them to find something they do like, so they can take up their own collection, and we will help them.  It's like we're talking to ourselves.

By the same token, some resist the concept of public acquisition of art, suggesting instead that we accept public art on loan.  That way, we can benefit from it, and we don't have to buy it.  Great, Chuck and I say.  We're totally on board.  Frankly, I myself have worked somewhat hard to find loaned art, and I haven't succeeded.  I've spoken to artists, to galleries, and to artists' agents.  But I never said I was good at this.  I'm just eager and appreciative.  If someone else knows someone, or has a way to do this better than I have, please, by all means...!  Nope.  Nothin'.  Not from the artists, not from the alleged professional appreciators of art, not from the critics.

The fact is, we've already succeeded twice, and we're well on the way to succeeding a third time.  There's advance enthusiasm for a fourth piece (the Lueza), too.  The reason is that there are many more people who do get it, and who appreciate what this is about, than there are nay-sayers and resistors.  It's just unexpected, and curious, that there isn't more support, and the most enthusiastic support, from the people who, by virtue of their "day jobs," have declared themselves most deeply committed to art.

Art in the Park. Over the Dead Bodies of Some.

Interesting discussion about public art at the Commission meeting last night.  My suggestion was that we raise about $10K per year by charging each homeowner $8 per year.  I know it doesn't sound like enough to talk about, but that was the proposal.  Hoo boy, I guess not!

Some of our neighbors don't want the Village to contribute anything.  (Meaning $8 a year is too rich for their blood.)  Some felt acquisition of public art should not be a public project (really?), and some just didn't want to spring for the $8.  (Yes, I said eight dollars per home per year.)

Some, like Barbara Watts and others, didn't want the Village to have dessert before it ate its vegetables.  If we're going to have public art, it should come after we fix the streets and improve the medians.  But since neither Barbara nor anyone else with this philosophy is making the slightest effort to get the streets fixed and the medians improved, it doesn't appear we'd ever get to public art.  Nor fixed streets or improved medians.  They seem to like the Village as skanky (I mean quaint and charming) as possible.

Another interesting angle in the resistance to public art (or at least to contributing to it) is the idea that a given piece is not particularly appealing to a given individual.  This excuse (I mean argument) was offered by a couple of people.  Barbara Watts was a central proponent of the idea that art that doesn't appeal to everyone is unworthy, and she supported her credential to say so by pointing out that she happens to be a professional art historian.  Funny enough, I counted on Barbara's expertise once.  Or I tried to.  Some years ago, when we were trying to form an Art Board, I asked Barbara if she would agree to be on such a Board.  (What an advantage for us to have a professional art historian on the Art Board!)  But she informed me that she would be of no use on such a Board, since her area of expertise is narrowly Fifteenth Century European art.  When we asked the then Commission to approve the first sculpture it eventually acquired, Barbara stood in rage over it, describing it as poor art.  She got this conclusion, she said, from some of her pals at FIU.  So Dr Barbara Watts, professional art historian, is qualified neither to appreciate nor criticize contemporary art, but she wants her personal dislike of a given piece of contemporary art to carry special weight?  How does that work?

And curiously too, Barbara did not join me in advocating for public support of public art in BP.  It was not long ago that she was so militant in demanding public support of public art here that she convinced two of her Commission colleagues-- a majority all together-- to take from the Village coffers money that was never earmarked for public art.  She wanted to use it to pay for a mural, over the unanimous disapproval of her neighbors.  She couldn't care less what the residents of the Park think: she just insists on public financing of public art.  Not any more, all of a sudden, though.  I wonder what happened to her commitment.

The fact is, I expected to have this idea rejected last night.  It's common that new ideas get rejected the first time around.  In the meantime, we will continue to collect donations.  As a frame of reference, there were six donors to the first sculpture the Village acquired.  There were 22 to the second.  At this moment, we're about 2/3 of the way to our goal, and there are about 80 donors.  By the time we finish, at this rate, there will be about 120.  For the sculpture in question, if every homeowner donated, all that would be required would be $5 per home.  We'll get there.  We'll certainly reach the goal for "The Ballplayer," and eventually, we might even reach the $8 per home per year goal.

We Want a Pitcher, Not a Glass of Water

Chuck Ross contacted me to ask me if I had seen what Noah Jacobs wrote about me on Noah's facebook page.  Chuck included a link to Noah's page.

No, I had not seen it.  I'm not a member of facebook.  I have no access to it.  And if that's how Noah wishes to unburden himself, I'm not really interested.  However, having used the link Chuck sent me, and having seen the weird places Noah took himself, and the wrong assumptions he made, and the seemingly deliberate misstatements he uttered, I thought I would use the "comment" opportunity to make some corrections.  I can't do it without access to facebook, access which I don't have.

So I asked Chuck to communicate with Noah, through Noah's facebook page, to let him know that I had an incomplete opportunity to know what Noah said, and no opportunity to respond.  I asked that Chuck suggest to Noah that if Noah had anything to say to me, or to ask me, that he do it in an effective way.  Noah actually addressed at least one of his paragraphs to me by name.  So it's a straw man, to be sure, but he did seem to want to give even the childish impression that he was simulating a conversation.  Another crack Noah made about me was that I was acting "brave" in some of the positions I publicly took.  Well, I guess that makes one of us.

I have asked Noah, as I have asked others, to meet with me, to criticize me, to have a proper and adult conversation.  I'm not getting takers.  All I get is wimpy sniping.  If it's not Noah's facebook page, it's someone else's secret and closed e-mail circulation.  And either one is replete with nonsensical and grossly inaccurate accusations.

I don't expect always to be agreed with.  Hell, I'm not even always right.  But there isn't much I, or anyone, can do with these timid and cowardly swipes.  I'm sure it makes Noah feel better, and like a big boy, when he can bluster on his facebook page.  But it does nothing for or about the areas of disagreement, or complaint.  I don't know about them, and if someone brings them to my attention, I can't respond.  I can't even respond to Noah privately, because Noah has taken the brave and grown up precaution of blocking me from his e-mail.  I don't even know what terrifies him so.

If you see Noah, please send him my way.  I don't bite.  I don't hit.  I don't threaten.  I'll listen to what he has to say.  If I disagree with him, I'll tell him so, and I'll explain myself.  If I come to think he's right, I'll tell him that.  I might even apologize, if I think that in being wrong, I compromised him in some way.  And that goes for anyone else, too.  Anyone who disagrees with me, or who thinks I'm wrong, should tell me so.  Most often, there are valid and differing approaches to a given problem.  Sometimes, one approach is more right than another.  If you're right, and I'm wrong, don't you think I should know about that?  How do you think I'll find out about it, if you don't tell me?  If you put it on facebook, or whisper it to your close friends, I'll never know.  And your failure to correct me will make you complicit in my wrong actions.

"Paralysis By Analysis" Well, More Attempt at Paralysis Than Real Analysis

Steve Bernard has sent out one of his famous e-missives.  He calls it "What's Been Happening in Biscayne Park," and his thrust seems to be to suggest Village residents have been deprived of information.  This is a fairly standard theme for Steve.

Steve goes on to talk about the $1.05M the Village got as a grant from the State, an "unspecified" special assessment, changes to responsibility for maintenance of swales, and an update on annexation.  It would take too much space to reprint Steve's whole screed here, but it you'd like a copy of it, let me know.  I'll send it to you.

In case you're wondering which of these areas was not clearly communicated throughout the Village, rest assured that they have all been clearly communicated.

One Village resident I know has for a long time characterized Steve as providing "paralysis by analysis."  It's a cute phrase, and it does, in fact, describe Steve's approach to things.  It's not so much that Steve's e-mail had this kind of effect.  He analyzed very little, and he paralyzed even less.  What's more to the point is that Steve has had unique opportunities in the Village.  There was a great deal he could have done.  He had the confidence of a lot of people, and he was a Commissioner himself for about five years.  But he didn't do anything.  It was then, when he had influence and prerogative, that he paralyzed by analyzing.

He's fussing now about the log cabin, and the grant to renovate it, but during his time of influence, he never said a word about it.  He made no effort to evaluate the considerable problems with the building, or to recommend any intervention.  And he's an architect.  This might have been right up his street.  Today, he whines about the cost of rehabilitation (a cost that would have been less during the years he had anything to say about it), and how we're going to cover a projected shortfall.  And in case there should be a solution to this problem, Steve proposes to disqualify every possibility.  (This is the "paralysis by analysis" approach.  If people approached this as Steve does, we would not do the renovation at all.  Which is presumably why we didn't do it when he was a BMOC.  Chicken Little was terrified that the sky was falling.  Steve Bernard doesn't seem to care if it does.)

Steve then turns his attention to a proposed assessment, which he calls "unspecified."  But then, he specifies what it is, apparently quoting from the advertised content.  So it's not unspecified, and it's not unadvertised.  It was never clear where Steve was going with this complaint.

Steve's next rant is about consideration of who is to attend to trees in swales: the resident of the property abutting said swale, or the Village.  Steve seems to warn, as if he didn't approve of it, that homeowners might be responsible.  Presumably, he'd like the Village to assume the maintenance burden.  But his long time overscrutiny of the Village budget, and his past efforts to deny adequate fiscal support to the Village, leave uncertainty as to how he thinks the Village will afford the extra responsibility he'd like it to have.

There are several--perhaps many--blog posts about annexation, and Steve's new project of trying to take this decision away from the Commission.  He is currently using Barbara Watts as his functionary for this effort.  As has been discussed already, at quite enough length, neither of them thinks this is a matter for the residents at large, and each of them has an established pattern of disregarding the public when he or she suspects the public will not agree with him or her.  Enough said.