Wednesday, April 8, 2015
"The Elephant in the Room"
In the Commission meeting last night, there was a presentation from our annexation strategist/lobbyist, Becker Poliakoff. Their representative let us know what has been accomplished, and where we are still lacking. We have now done what we can, and we are in the unenviable position of doing battle with the City of North Miami over who has the better case to annex the area in question. Becker Poliakoff are working on how to stop the annexation train that CNM is trying to guide through the County Commission.
Becker Poliakoff have tried pleading and cajoling, all to no avail, and they are now trying to represent us "from a position of strength," not one of weakness. They have threatened CNM that if it does not relinquish to us the area in question, they will object to other and even unrelated CNM acquisition/annexation targets.
In questioning the Becker Poliakoff representative, Barbara Watts demanded attention to "the elephant in the room." Specifically, she wanted to know what was told to residents of the annexation target, to induce them to sign a petition approving their being annexed, and she wanted to know why "we" were objecting to unrelated ambitions on the part of CNM. These elements of what she seemed to interpret as mischief were what she saw as the "elephants in the room" regarding our scheming and maneuvering.
The "elephant in the room" is really this: the last BP Commission, the one that included Mayor Jacobs and Commissioners Watts and Cooper, chose not to apply to annex the tract in question. At a time that there was no other applicant, and there were no residents. When the tract seemed to be ours for the taking, and every expert and knowledgeable advisor urged us to annex, these three BP elected officials chose to drop the ball. They demonstrated complete lack of vision, ambition, courage, and even common sense, and they did not mark our place by submitting an application.
In our dealings with CNM over this annexation effort, CNM have held firm in refusing to back away from this tract. And they have had one and only one argument, one trump card, one song to sing: "we applied first." They are absolutely right. The majority of the last BP Commission allowed CNM to put forth the first application, and thereby gain what CNM, at least, think is an important, if not dispositive, upper hand.
That was the "elephant in the room." Barbara Watts, who was casting about looking for someone to blame, someone whose methods could be impugned, was a central figure in causing unspeakable trouble and extra expense for the Village. She did not have the decency to admit her own blameworthiness, and certainly not to apologize for her poor judgement and failed representation of BP.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well said, Fred. This would all have gone much smoother if it were acted upon when it was being discussed by the previous Commission. Very frustrating.
ReplyDeleteBrian,
DeleteIf you ask Watts about it, as I did, she will say that the then Manager advised against going forward. I agree this was a lapse on the part of the then Manager. What actually happened is that she felt strongly that we should annex, but she could not get Watts, Cooper, or Jacobs to flinch from their refusal. She therefore told them they shouldn't bother to have the discussion as an agenda item. They won, she forfeited. What she should have done was to have the item on the agenda, and let them vote it down on the record. She was on her way out at that time, anyway, and she didn't have the stomach for the debate.
In the end, though, it is not possible to assign responsibility anywhere but to Watts, Cooper, and Jacobs, who made abundantly clear they would not agree to make application. For Watts' part, she continued to obstruct and resist, even with the present Commission. Neither Cooper nor Jacobs has been heard to express any regret or second thoughts about their staunch resistance.
Fred
It could not be said, by the way, Brian, that Watts has always taken the advice of Village Managers. It appears she is exquisitely selective about it. Her citation of Ana Garcia's advice not to bother discussing the issue is therefore deeply disingenuous.
DeleteFred
Well said, Fred. This would all have gone much smoother if it were acted upon when it was being discussed by the previous Commission. Very frustrating.
ReplyDeleteFred,
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point on what Barbara Watts focus is/was. She was more lathered up than I've seen her before. Sadly, her focus wasn't on the long term goals for our Village but on what I consider mostly irrelevant items.
Her insistence on implying some wrongdoings in the process of getting the required signatures shows a total lack of regard towards the big picture. She continues to be more concerned with some personal ethical dilemma regarding the NM annex population than in the long term fiscal health of our Village.
I can understand that she has no experience in game theory or in negotiation tactics when you lack leverage. Let's face it, there probably wasn't much of this taking place in the 15th century art scene. But, instead of listening and learning from what our advisory was explaining, her wall went up and I don't think anything got through. This was made clear when David even had to ask her "if she was listening" when she asked questions that had already been covered.
It is true that she, Noah and Cooper did our Village a great disservice in missing the opportunity to push this forward when there was little obstructions in our way. But, that would have require some vision and understanding...something they all have demonstrated is lacking. I suppose that they deemed their inter-commission power squabbles were more important.
But, she remains compelled to protest... even if she's unsure on what she's protesting.
Watts and her collaborators may have cost this Village a tremendous opportunity to diversify our tax base. There were in fact residents in the one apartment complex (Baywinds) at the time this was first broached, it is very doubtful the qualified voters at Baywinds exceeded the number (250) required to call for a vote (subsequently another apartment complex Alta Mira has been constructed and occupied). So the additional expense of Becker & Poliakoff (B&P) was likely unnecessary. Along with the additional cost of B&P Watts and her collaborators caused a substantial delay in the process that has dangerously jeopardized this opportunity. As you pointed out now North Miami can claim they were first despite the fact that former Commissions built a form of this annexation plan into the Village Comprehensive Plan back in 2008.
ReplyDeleteSitting near the top of the millage rate while reserves have plummeted from approx. near $900K in 2009 to approx. $500K today is not where this Village wants to be. A diversified tax base could go a long way to remedying that situation.
Watts and her collaborators should be ashamed of themselves.
PS
Lastly, as you state Manager Garcia gave up on her attempt to move this forward and she was on the way out, she did not recommend against annexation. If you ask her today should will say that we should have moved forward with the application (as did Municipal Revenue Expert Ken Small among others) as we did under the current Commission.
Chuck
I don't entirely fault Watts, Cooper, and Jacobs for their opposition to annexation. If they thought it was not the best idea, and they thought they represented a meaningful segment of the neighborhood, they should have been opposed.
ReplyDeleteMy complaint is two things. One is that they persistently refused (perhaps wouldn't even listen to) abundant advice from several experts, not to mention the segment of the neighborhood that thought annexation was potentially important. What this input should have done, and this is my other complaint, was led them to make the application, just to hold our place, while we debated the issue further. They failed to take this precaution, out of what appears to have been nothing more than arrogance and hunger for power, and we are now paying a heavy price for their failure.
Frankly, it would be nice to see a little contrition from them, but I'm not holding my breath. Their heads are still filled with the same arrogance that burdened their ability to make prudent decisions before. Watts should at least stop her obstructing and disingenuous moralizing. It's not as if, as Milt and Chuck say, she knows what she's doing or talking about. She should show more humility, if she can't work up some well-deserved guilt feelings.
Fred
Fred,
DeleteI have to disagree somewhat with your comment above. To say you don't entirely fault Watts, Cooper and Jacobs for their opposition seems to suggest that they understood our financial shortfalls and offered valid reasons "why" they objected. That and or had another plan of action in mind.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken but I don't recall any valid reasons or other solutions offered from them. Would the only saving grace be that some "meaningful segment of our neighbors" objected? And what if that "segment" was unaware or ignorant to the fiscal situation and why this process was considered in the first place? Does that make a difference?
To suggest that our previous Village Manager should have gone along with an application knowing full well that the majority of the Commissions was against it is a slippery slope. I'm not sure that that was a misstep.
We elect representatives to (hopefully) guide us with the understanding that they, you in this case, know more about the Villages interworking than the common resident. And that those needs of the Village should come before personal agendas or petty political power plays.
These commissioners have an established track record of not listening to expects or in receiving council from others more qualified than themselves. They harbor some self-deluded ideas of knowing more than everyone else... or in what is best for our Village.
And based on their actions, that is a scary thought indeed!
Milt,
DeleteWhat I mean is that they were entitled to their opinions. No, they offered nothing in place of annexation, but if they thought it was in itself bad, I have no quarrel with them. The further discussion had to be whether they thought we had a real problem (they seem to think not, and they should have explained further), and what they thought was the best thing to do about one if they did think we had one. But still, they were entitled to take any position they wanted. What they had to do in the meantime was to keep all the doors open, while they persuaded us annexation was not the best way to go. Their failure to do that has cost us a great deal.
I do think Ana should have kept this issue on the agenda, even if she knew she did not have the support. If nothing else, it would have prevented people like Watts from making the foolish statement she made, that the then Manager advised against annexation. Ana did not advise annexation. She advised against a sure vote against proceeding with an application. I would have liked that "no" vote on the record.
Fred
Wow... please excuse all my typos. I'll need to pay more attention next time.
ReplyDeleteJust a late thought. I still think anyone is entitled to his or her opinion. The issue here was that the matter was controversial for some, and those who didn't favor annexation did not offer a viable alternative. They did not have to commit to annexation, if they thought it was a bad idea for us. But they had to hold our place with an application. They were reminded and reassured publicly at the time that we were not obligating ourselves to anything by applying, and that we could withdraw our application, or decline the tract if it was offered to us, if we ultimately decided against annexation.
ReplyDeleteTheir failure to leave our marker on the table has compromised our position greatly. If it costs us annexation, and if still no viable alternative is offered by anyone, then they have inflicted material loss on the Village. Not making application two years ago was irresponsible and represented unbearably poor judgment.
Fred