The Canary in the Coal Mine

For those unfamiliar (are there such?), the purpose of a caged canary in a coal mine is to react (by dying) to early and undetectable gas accumulations, so miners will know a disaster is imminent, and they will get out of the mine.  More generally, the concept is intended to suggest seemingly minor and subtle irregularities that herald more dire eventualities.  The purpose, of course, as with coal miners, is to allow reaction to the minor and subtle irregularity, before the bigger problem comes.  Ideally, the bigger problem can even be averted.

For not entirely clear reasons, people do not like to recognize dead canaries, and they do not want to address the problems that resulted in the canaries' deaths.  It could be laziness, or it could be general lack of initiative, or sometimes, for those short-sighted enough, it could be a disinclination to commit to, and pay for, whatever will avert the impending big problem.

In the Village, we have streets that are shredded at the edges.  About 10 years ago, Village residents who live on the canal complained about water leaching up into their homes when the tide was unusually high, like after heavy rains.  More recently, some Village residents have complained about water pooling (literally) in the streets after heavier rains.  Sometimes, those spots on those streets are not easily passable for a while.*  There appears to be general agreement about a rising water table in south Florida, affecting the Village as well.  On 121st Street, between 11th Avenue and 11th Court, there is an access point to a drainage reservoir, and the iron access cover, as well as the support around it, have sunk about 4-5 inches below street level.  Apparently, this devolution is not new, since we have attended to it with patches over the years.

(* Last week, I was at Costco after a significant rain.  About 1/3 of their parking lot was so under water that no one could park there, and then walk to the store.  If it could have been argued that the heavy pooling would be gone in several hours, that fact would not have done Costco any good.  Had I not happened upon a spot where the grade was higher, Costco would have lost my business for that day.)

It is perhaps arguable whether this water problem is coming from above, in the form of excess precipitation, or from below, caused by rising seas and a rising water table.  What should not be arguable is that our current mechanism for removing water is not working well enough to protect our ground from oversaturation.

Some of us hope that the fix is easy, with only a necessity to clean out the drains and reservoirs we already have.  Others are concerned that we may need rebuilding, redesign, or even new construction of the water diversion system upon which the Village relies.  Unfortunately, there are some among us who don't even want to know the problem exists.  If they can somehow look the other way, explain away what the rest of us can see, or just get a car which rides higher off the ground, they can declare that there is no problem.  It's not surprising that those whose properties are directly affected are more vocal about the problem, and those who argue that there is no problem are not as directly affected.

What's also interesting is that if I think of the neighbors who are most vocal in arguing that there is no problem, or at least not one that needs to be fixed, some of them are among the more fastidious about maintaining their own personal residences.  They are also among those who are less willing to pay higher property taxes.  It seems as if their dedication and their commitment is to the building where they sleep and cook, not to the Village as a whole.  "Home," to them, is narrowly defined.

These neighbors don't want a canary in our coal mine.  It's not that they have any special affection for canaries.  It's just that they don't want to have to do what has to be done when the canary dies.  At this point, the canary appears to be having some significant distress.  It is, as they say, not at all well.

I Think I Understand, Although I'm Not Sure I Agree

At last night's Commission meeting, the subject of "McMansions" came up.  We have new construction in the Village, and some of the new structures, replacing old structures, are considered by some to be "McMansions."  The label is clearly intended to be pejorative, and the very clear implication is that those who so label these new houses don't like them.  In the discussion topic, as it was presented, one portrayal was that the new BP "McMansions" would look good in Doral or Palmetto Bay, but not in BP.  I tried to understand how that conclusion was arrived at, but I couldn't get a straight answer.

Three things should be understood, before we talk more about the new structures.  First, BP has Codes, which must be followed.  Second, some architect, knowing the Codes and having familiarized him- or herself with the Village, proposed the designs.  Third, the Planning and Zoning Board, which is sometimes frankly more restrictive, strident, and controlling than I personally like, approved the proposed structures as satisfactory with respect to the Codes, and adequately "harmonious" for the neighborhood.  That a proposed structure or addition, or even a paint color choice, should be "harmonious" with the Village is a decision P&Z are authorized to make, and it is the area over which I most often disagreed with them when I was a member of that Board.  I found them not permissive enough.  The light, then, was very green for the new structures some of us brand as "McMansions," and the last obstacle was the most restrictive of all.

I don't really know what a "McMansion" is.  The first time I heard the term used, it seemed intended to apply to new and large homes, seemingly the grandest in whatever was the neighborhood in question.  The name is clearly intended to recall McDonald's, although the connection is unclear.  Most likely, the association was to the imposition of something cookie-cutter, insubstantial, and pervasive.

During the discussion, I asked for a definition of "McMansion."  The sponsor of the discussion topic told me to "google it."  If I thought there was a definition, and that I could find out what it was, this kind of response suggested to me that there wasn't, and I couldn't.  So I asked my friend Judith, who lives in some upscale burg in Connecticut.  It seems she knows all about "McMansions," and she used words like "garish," "atrocity," "super-sized," "mass-produced," and "incongruous" (with the surrounding homes, I assume).

The Village is a unique place, and part of what makes it unique is its eclectic range of styles.  We have single story houses, and two story houses.  Our Code permits two stories, but not more.  We have old homes, and new homes.  We have Spanish style, Key West style, contemporary style, and plain old CBS.  We used to limit the color choice to white, until some brave ancestors of ours branched into off white, too.  Now, we permit many colors.  In a community like ours, it would be hard to think of a design style that was not "harmonious."  We don't do harmonious.  We do "have whatever you like, but keep it nice."  And some of us don't even do the latter.  (We're tightening that now.  We're starting to ride herd on the less fastidious of our neighbors, and some of them don't like it.  Funny enough, the current Commissioner who has been most protective and permissive when it comes to resisting a level of upkeep and property decorum is the same one who doesn't like "McMansions."  And that Commissioner, who doesn't like to control the design and upkeep preferences of BP homeowners, was quick to tell us we shouldn't be allowed to have fences or walls in front of our homes.  Go figure.)

Two properties were cited in last night's discussion.  They were considered to be the worst examples of neighborhood-destroying McMansionness.  One was what has replaced the "Larry King house," at 119th and Griffing, and the other is the super energy-efficient home on the south side of 119th Street between 8th and 9th Avenues.  As it happens, I have familiarity with each of these properties.  In about 2006 or 2007, I looked into the "Larry King house."  I was considering moving there.  But it was not a good layout.  It was disorganized, with apparently ill thought out additions, and parts that did not go together.  I passed.  A couple bought it a few years later, but they moved out.  They had wanted to add on a garage, but the property and setbacks couldn't handle it.  So the house was demolished, and there's quite the imposing two-story structure going up now.  It's still bare cinder block, and it's hard to tell what it will look like.  But whatever it is, I'm sure it will be a lot better than the house that didn't suit Larry King, or me, or the couple.  It will likely be a credit to our most upscale street.

The other property is in the block next to mine.  The new construction replaced a decrepit tear-down.  I had seen a virtual walk-through of it, and I later had an actual walk-through, when it was unfinished inside and out.  It's a magnificent property.  I made an offer, but it was not accepted.  I offered what the developer said he wanted, but by that time, he realized from recent sales that he could do much better.  It really is a spectacular home.  It's two-story.  As is the home two houses east of that one, the one catercorner from that one, and the one just east of that one.

Both sites look more imposing now than they will when they're done.  More than anything, they are partially concealed by protective tall and covered chain link fences at the front property edge.  Once those fences are gone, and the landscaping is in, I think we'll all be pleased.  Well, maybe not "all."

But in a neighborhood like the Village, it wouldn't be fair to consider these constructions "incongruous."  Every house is "incongruous," in the sense that they're all different.  These two are also unique: not at all "mass-produced."  "Garish" or atrocious?  Not to me.  "Super-sized?"  The replacement for the "Larry King house," looks like it's going to be very large.  Not too large for the lot or for the Village, according to the architect and the Village's P&Z Board.  The other house?  Roomy, but politely so.

I still don't confidently know what a "McMansion" is.  But if these two new homes qualify, I personally don't have a problem with them.  They're just part of the neighborhood.  I'd like to imagine we would come to be the kind of neighborhood in which they fit well better than poorly kept properties do.

Yet More Good, and Bad, News

The Sunshine Jazz Organization has promoted jazz locally for about 30 years.  Among their activities is a monthly performance that occurs at the Miami Shores Country Club.  It is scheduled for the fourth Sunday of every month, and the setting is the bar and lounge area in the back of the clubhouse.

Admission costs $20 per person.  You can defray that a bit by becoming a member of the SJO.  Membership costs $40 for a one year individual membership, or $50 for a one year family membership.  If you join when you attend the performance, that entry is free.  Subsequently, you get $5 off the admission price per person.  You have to attend five concerts a year individually to get your membership's worth.

Tonight's performance was a Latin jazz group called Oriente.  They are a well enough known local group who play in various locations in south Florida.  They bill themselves as presenters of "Latin Jazz, Blues, Rhythm & Soul," and they put on a great musical experience.  These are solid performers, and they work very well together.

That's the good news.  Here's the bad news.  The performances start at 6:00 PM, and they're scheduled to go until 9:00.  I went with two friends, and they called ahead to find out what the food offering was.  We assumed, naturally, that if a concert (we thought it was a concert) ran from 6-9 PM, there must be food.  My friends couldn't get any information, except a view of the usual MSCC menu.  They told me it's pricey.  There's a Sunday brunch at MSCC, but nothing listed for regular dinner food on Sunday.  They also left three voicemail messages, but they did not get a call back.  So we ate elsewhere, and arrived sated and ready to listen.

It seems the MSCC regulars know something we didn't know.  There is a limited menu for the lounge in back.  And that limited menu, and drinks, and post-golfing chatter, were what most of the room were there for.  They essentially ruined the experience for those of us (just the three of us?) who paid to come to listen.  For the regular patrons, the difference between music and no music is that they have to talk louder if there's music, so they can hear each other over it.  It seemed amazing to me that they weren't self-conscious about essentially yelling, while Oriente were trying to provide great music.

I'd like to recommend the SJO series at MSCC, but I'm not sure I can.  If you're curious, and you do go, try to get a seat or table near the musicians.  Maybe they'll be loud enough that you won't hear the rude chatterboxes over them.  The next SJO evening at MSCC is December 27.

It Depends What You Want. Anthony's Wood-Fired Pizza

Sylvia Linke told me about Anthony's.  She had eaten there, and she said it was great.  I mentioned it to Chuck Ross, when he and I were trolling for what to do about dinner, and he'd heard about Anthony's, and had wanted to try it.  I said we should.  He scolded me for being unfaithful to Dana Lulic (of Tomato & Basil), but he didn't disagree that we should try Anthony's.

Anthony's is in the strip mall on the north side of 123rd Street, in the block just east of Biscayne Boulevard.  It's the complex where LA Fitness is.  Anthony's is the last storefront to the east.  It's very new, having opened just a few weeks ago.

You don't feel Anthony's until you're right there.  You're greeted at the door by a trio of employees.  Two are 20-something girls, and the other is a 20-something boy.  They all smile, they're all very cute, and they couldn't be more inviting.  You have to realize Anthony's hires them to greet you.  They're not going to become your new BFF.  If you're there to take out, as Chuck and I were, they point you to the diagonally opposite corner of the room, to the desk that says "Take Out."  You make your way back there, where you encounter another trio of Anthony's cuties.  These are even friendlier than the ones at the door.  They literally nuzzle up against you, while you're making sense of the menu, and if you're not careful, you'll wonder whether it's the pizza, or the employees, you're there to consume.  I called one of the girls "my love," and she called me "darling."   Chuck and I had a slightly complicated pizza order, but she helped us settle on how to make it happen.  She then invited us to have a seat at the bar, where we met Veronica.  We thought Veronica, who reciprocally needed to know our names, too, would have served us anything, but Chuck settled for a beer.  I had already had one at home earlier, and I was thinking about the two bottles of wine that were waiting for us back at my house, so I passed.  Chuck got his Peroni, although Veronica scolded him that he should try something he couldn't get just anywhere (I'm not sure whether she was offering some other beer, or something else).  She brought him a taste of the house special, a beer they call "Fuhgeddaboutit."  It was very good.  And about $7.50.  It pays, apparently, to be friendly.  Chuck's Peroni cost $6.50.

Here's the thing about Anthony's: you feel like you're in another world.  The real world is suspended.  You can fall in love in Anthony's.  You can make love in Anthony's.  I told the girls I would be back to pick them up when their shift was over, which they told us was 11:00, and they agreed.  At Tomato & Basil, I tell Dana that I hope she and Leandro are the best couple in the history of the world, but if it turns out they're not, I want to know about it.  Dana knows I'm serious.  When I tell the girls at Anthony's I'll be back to pick them up at 11:00, they know I'm not.  It's really harmless and liberating fun.

At some point-- the promised 20 minute wait flew by very quickly-- our pizza was ready.  It was a "large," but smaller than I expected.  And with the array of toppings we ordered, it cost about $22.50.

Anthony's is lively and loud.  It's almost raucous.  It's crowded, everyone is having a good time, the TVs are on (sports, I think), and it's wall-to-wall flirting.  If you're not in a mood to flirt, don't waste your time at Anthony's.

As we were leaving, I realized something that hadn't been obvious at the beginning.  The front panel of glass doors at Anthony's retracts, and the inside of the store extends to the outside.  The limit is a convex metal fence that encloses several smaller tables.  Outside at those tables were dads and moms and their kids.  They were busy having their own kind of fun.

Chuck and I left, and the cuties at the front door greeted us as warmly on our way out as they did on our way in.

The pizza was good, but not better than some others, and not nearly as good as the pizza at T & B.  On the other hand, no pizza is as good as the pizza at T & B.  And the pizza at Anthony's cost a good deal more.

If you want great pizza, for a very good price, and you want a casual but sedate experience, and you want to deal with the loveliest woman there is (or the loveliest couple, if Leandro's there), go to Tomato & Basil.  If you want to kick loose, have fun, flirt, have perfectly decent food, and wind up with a big smile you can't fully explain, go to Anthony's.

What Do You Think About Our New Entry Signs?

There has been some dissatisfaction about our new entry signs.  They were intended for most entry points of the Village, except the 6th Avenue bridge.  There were to be eight signs in all.  As of now, four are erected.  They are at the top and bottom of Griffing, the top of 10th Avenue, and the top of 8th Avenue.

The dissatisfaction has been about two features of these signs.  One is the finish, and the other is the white backing.  Some people think both look bad.  Here's the deal about the signs.

We did not pay for them, for whatever that's worth.  We got one of those patented "grants."  We did, however, manage the design, material, size, and placement.  The Village gets full responsibility-- credit or blame-- for the finished product.

A design was offered to the Commission.  The design was represented by a computerized photoshopped "photograph."  The design was of an upside down triangle, which is the shape of the Village, with the name Village of Biscayne Park cut out, and the silhouette of a bird on one of the upper corners.  The material was CorTen steel.  The "photograph" seemed to show the proposed metal sign as being more or less red in color, with blotchiness that I imagined was supposed to simulate shadows.

The Commission approved this design.  The design was then presented to the Art Advisory Board and the Parks and Parkways Board, which jointly approved it.  An actual, almost life size, model was made and presented at the May 5, 2015 Commission meeting.  I will tell you now, with regret, I was not there.  Commissioners who were there included David Coviello, Roxanna Ross, Bob Anderson, and Barbara Watts.

Barry Miller of the landscape architecture firm Miller Sorvino gave much of the introduction.  He cited the intention to invoke the Village's "rustic charm" in creating the sign design.  Mention was made of the actual color of the model and of the white backing behind the cut out letters.  Barbara Watts recalled that the color of the sign in the preproduction "photograph" did not match the color of the model presented at the meeting.  She had Mr Miller confirm that the intended color and finish would be that of the model, not of the "photograph."  It was also confirmed that the color came from a constant and self-renewing patina of rust that is characteristic of CorTen steel.  Bob Anderson also noted the "rusty coating" of the model, that it was intended as a protective finish, and he added that he thought the model looked "really nice."  Little else was said of the composition of the sign or the color.

The model presented to the Commission had a white material behind the metal sign.  This was intended to make the cut out lettering clear.  The preproduction "photograph" showed cut out letters with no backing.  You could see plantings through the letters.  Bob Anderson again noted this, and the Commission was reassured that the intention was to install adequate plantings behind the sign, so the white backing would not ultimately be seen.  Nothing further was said about the backing.

Roxy Ross said she "really liked" the sign presented to the Commission, and to the audience, and to the Comcast videographer at the 5/5/15 meeting.  David Coviello "loved" it and considered it "beautiful."  Bob Anderson, as mentioned, found the sign "really nice."  Barbara Watts didn't have a conclusion.  As I said, I wasn't there.

Now, some of these signs are erected.  Some Village residents don't like them.  Two people have complained to me about the signs, and neither of these people was at the 5/5/15 meeting.

As a personal matter, I'm not in love with these signs, either.  I agree the rust patina is not what I expected, and I don't like the white backing.  I'd like to see it removed, as it didn't exist in the photoshopped advance advertisement, or if that can't happen, then concealed from the back of the signs with plantings, as Mr Miller suggested.  But if I had been at the 5/5/15 meeting, and if these issues had struck me then as they do now, it appears I would have been outvoted.  Three, if not four, of my Commission colleagues appear to like the signs very much.  So did the landscape architect, the Village's Art Advisory Board, and the Village's Parks and Parkways Board.  No non-Commissioner residents at the meeting complained, and none of the people who might watch the meetings on video contacted anyone to register disapproval.

But what do you think of these signs?  Have you seen them?  If you don't like them, do you have any thoughts about what you'd like to see done with them?  I don't know enough about CorTen steel to know if it can be sanded, primed, and painted.  If it could, and you don't like the rust patina--if it doesn't invoke "rustic charm" for you-- would you like to have it treated this way?  What about the white backing, to show off the cut out letters?  Are you good with that, assuming it gets hidden by plantings behind the sign?

"GiveMiami" Day

This year, GiveMiami Day is tomorrow, 11/19/15.

GiveMiami Day is an annual appeal, during which anyone can make a donation to any of a large number of local non-profits, and based on the amount of donations on that day, they are in some sense "matched" by the Miami Foundation.  The latter is a County agency that stimulates and pools available funds from private donors.

The "match" is nothing like 1:1.  I'm told that last year, the Miami Foundation was able to donate 3% of what the non-profits raised on GiveMiami Day.  It isn't known until GiveMiami Day is over-- until it's known how much the non-profits raised on their own-- what the "match" will be.

At any rate, GiveMiami Day is a great time to make a donation.  You can go to givemiamiday.org to see a list of non-profits.  You can donate as little or as much as you like.  It's all appreciated.

Blasphemy, I Know, But I Calls 'Em As I Sees 'Em.

I used to go to the Arsht Center for one thing or another.  In the early days, I went somewhat more often, because my aunt and uncle (yes, that aunt and uncle) usher and give tours there, and they were always in possession of complimentary tickets, which were given to me.  Eventually, when the comps started to dry up, I went less often, because the Arsht charges too much for events there, and even the events I most liked were getting priced out of accessibility.  Last year, I sort of quit going for anything, unless I had to.  I even quit going to flamenco at the Arsht.  I had needed an extra seat for a Miami Symphony Orchestra concert, and they wanted too much for the add-on.  They did not respect the deal I had with MiSO, and they wouldn't even take responsibility for the charge.  They said it was MiSO that set the prices.  I know better than that.

This year, I made an exception.  There's a terrific series of classical concerts, and I decided to subscribe to the season.  With extra concerts, there are six of them.  Last night was the first one. Yo-Yo Ma was the best of an elite group of musicians, all of whom were remarkably good.  The weakest link, and not bad at all, was the tabla player.  The program was unusually interesting world music.

I could have paid more for my tickets, but more was simply too much.  It was very distinct Arsht Center pricing, and it's clear they emulate NYC when they choose prices to demand.  The whole idea is that we are not NYC-- we're just as good for much less money-- but the Arsht decision-makers seem to have lost that understanding.  I was in the front row of the first balcony, and my tickets cost $91 each.  And that was a discount, because I bought the series.

The acoustics in the Arsht Center are amazing.  That means I could hear plenty well enough from where I was.  I could not see so well, though, since it was far away.  And this was for $91.

Legroom (lack thereof) is another problem with the Arsht.  There wasn't any in the balcony.  There's a bit more in the orchestra section, but it's not what it should be, especially for that kind of money.

My companion and I got there a bit late, too.  The concert was to start at 8:00, and we got to our seats at 7:57.  Never mind that the concert didn't start on time.  We should have gotten there at least 10 minutes earlier than we did.  The usher offered us one program.  We were told they were "rationing."  For $91, to sit in the balcony.  The usher did not walk us to our seats, either.  He just pointed to the front of the balcony.  I have acrophobia, too, but it was his job to "usher" us to our seats.

I'll finish this season, and that will be it for me and the Arsht.  I'll probably have to make another exception some time.  Maybe they'll get Hiromi back, and I still have to go there if MiSO keeps performing there.  The Arsht is a wonderful venue.  They just don't treat their patrons right.

The Good News is that I Can Save My Money From Now On.

My uncle and aunt like to go out to dinner with my parents from time to time.  But since my mother is now total care, and she still likes to go out, and I appear to be the only one of the "kids" who is willing to help out in this way, I "get the duty."  I could say I get a meal out of it.  But...

Last night, the five of us went to Cote, a French restaurant at 9999 NE 2nd Avenue in Miami Shores.  My uncle and aunt have been there before (my uncle estimates it has been about 4-5 times), and since they love French cooking, and this is French cooking, then they love Cote.  Also, the owner's name is Ivan, as is the middle child of my uncle and aunt.  So between one thing and another, Cote got the call.  At least it was better than Smith and Wollensky on the southern tip of Miami Beach, which is where we went last time we had this outing.

We arrived at about 6:30, and the place was empty.  It was more than half full about an hour later, so it seems we were just the early birds.  Ivan greets you, and his assistant brings you menus.  And water.  At some point, she brings you bread and some amuses bouche, which were modest pastries of no significant moment.

It doesn't take terribly long for Ivan to take your order.  The same cannot be said of fulfillment of that order.  And it seems Ivan knows what you're thinking, because the menu says "Fast Food is Not Good, and Good Food is Not Fast."  Were it only that simple.

The menu is not extensive-- why should it be, in a restaurant with seating for only about 20-30 people?-- but it's varied enough.  My aunt very fondly recalled Cote's carrot soup, but that item was not on the menu last night.  Not every dish survives the rotation.  There were more than enough other choices, though.  For people like me, who prefer to eat vegetarian, there was one item in the entrees: spinach raviolis.  If I refused to eat dairy, too, which I sometimes do, I would have been out of luck.  But I get ahead of myself here.

I was not sure how the bill would be divided.  My guess was that we would divide it in thirds.  I eat more than anyone else anyway, so I had no real complaint about paying a third.  And I don't order wine or dessert in restaurants, so I figured I was entitled to eat whatever I wanted.  Soups at Cote are $7.50 a serving, but they had a "trilogy" for $9.  Never having been to Cote, I thought it would be best if I tried three kinds of soup.  And it was so cost effective that I couldn't resist anyway.  So pea, lentil, and zucchini and potato it was.  The goat cheese salad, with apples and nice-sounding veggies, seemed irresistible, too, and I was willing to pay $15 for it.  My raviolis were going to cost $24.  My father ordered "what he's [I'm] having."  He eats a lot, too.  My mother ordered only beef tagine.  My aunt ordered onion soup and foie gras.  My uncle ordered the raviolis.  He's a light eater, so that was it for him.

To make a long, and not very happy, story shorter, the service was more than frustrating.  You can see that Ivan likes money, and he doesn't mind charging lots of it for the dishes he serves.  It seems he doesn't like to share the available money, though, so he's the only real waitstaff.  Only Ivan takes orders.  I guess that's his way of corraling most of the tip money, too.

Dishes come when they come.  And they don't come in any real order.  When I got my soups, my uncle got his raviolis.  My aunt got her onion soup.  At some point, my mother got her beef tagine.  We had to ask what happened to my father's soups, which should have been served at the same time mine were.  With this stimulus, my father's soups arrived.  Then, we waited.  My aunt got her foie gras.  My uncle was all but done. He was helping my mother, who has a difficult time feeding herself and was sitting next to him.  My father and I were wondering what happened to the rest of our meals, which supposedly then included salads and raviolis.  I told Ivan's assistant to cancel the salads, since it was getting late and we were just as happy to move it along and confine ourselves to the entrees. The result of the request to cancel the salads was delivery of the salads.  Ivan brought them, and I told him they had been cancelled.  He took them away.  But then I got to thinking.  When Ivan reappeared, I asked if the raviolis, those which had been served to my uncle some time ago, were almost ready.  If they weren't, my father and I would take the salads, and we would cancel the raviolis instead.  Yes, Ivan reassured, the raviolis were ready.  Apparently, they really weren't, but they came before anyone got more fed up.

We finished with profiteroles.  We got two orders, for the two couples (as I said, I don't do dessert at restaurants), and these two orders amounted to eight small profiteroles.  I have never understood profiteroles.  I have had them, and they are never better than a poor excuse for dessert.  They taste cheap.  And since no one had a stomach as big as his or her eyes were, except I always do, I not only ate some of them, but I ate more than I wanted.

The food was tolerable.  Maybe some of it was more or less good.  None of it was any better than that.  I had to finish my mother's tagine, and it was distinctly disappointing.  My soups were nothing special, and the raviolis were as good as they needed to be.  Portions were small, as is supposed to suggest high quality, or maybe rarity.  Absence might make the heart grow fonder, but it's not very filling.  Nothing at Cote dazzled.  Except the prices.

My uncle took out his credit card.  I took out mine.  My father, whose memory is worth, um, not that much, had forgotten his.  But he had an idea.  I (he) would pay for everyone, and he would pay me back.  I did mention my father's memory, right?  So dinner was on me, and unless I plan to remind him that he owes me $170, it will stay that way.

I won't be back to Cote.

Well, Don't That Just Beat All.

Yesterday, I went to the recreation center to meet up with some of the other Halloween volunteers, so we could get our assignments.  The event, by the way, was a great success, as it always is.  There were lots of people, and it seemed everyone had a great time.

While I was walking to my assigned post for the evening, I passed one of our neighbors, sitting on his steps, watching the people.  And presumably, handing out candy.  I know him just a little, and he knows me, just a little.  He and I greeted each other as I walked past, and he called out to me to ask if I was gearing up for next year's election, in which he assumed I would be running again.

I don't really know this neighbor, other than I know his name, he knows mine, and we greet each other.  But we have crossed paths.  I was one of the ones at whom he mobilized some anger over the sanitation, um, thing.  He came to the podium in those days to complain and to rail not only over the idea of outsourcing sanitation, but at those of us who were accused of ignoring the clearly stated wishes of a group of our neighbors, himself included.  For that reason, I have felt some lingering illness-at-ease between us, although nothing was ever said.  And now, on Halloween, here he was, sitting outside, enjoying the day, and greeting me, asking about my "political" ambitions.

"Absolutely not," I told him.
"Why not?"
"Because it's been a huge aggravation."

I didn't have to say another word.  He knew, and I knew, what was an important part of the huge aggravation.

"But it worked out fine," he pointed out.

"I know," I affirmed.



Not to worry, though.  I'm not running for re-election.  I have a better idea.  Since the Village is so small, and we have so many neighbors who know exactly how everything should be, I want to move us from a Commission/Manager form of government to a Town Meeting form of government.  We don't need middlemen.  We can get together a few times a year, decide what everyone wants, and hire some functionary to push the paper and make the phone calls.  Then, we can criticize them if anything is imperfect.

There Are Some of the People You Can't Please Any of the Time

Last night's special Commission meeting seemed like a minor matter.  I would have given it 30 minutes, although, yeah, I know, nothing to do with the VBP Commission happens that fast.

The issue was our old friend, the dais, and our need to, um, get off the pot.  Not only were McKenzie representatives coming, again, to listen to us fuss about the dais, but even the architect, Richard Heisenbottle, who specializes in historic renovation, came to provide his two cents.  By the time we were done with him, I suspect we took at least a dollar's worth of his thoughts.

Charlie Easton, our resident consultant/carpenter, was there, too, to provide the benefits of his own expertise and wisdom.  And it might have been a good thing he was there.  He's Barbara Watts' favorite, and she even hugged him at the beginning of the meeting.  Barbara don't do nothin' without Charlie's approval.  Or someone's.

The stage was set.  Barbara Kuhl restated the issues: the dais costs too much, and it's not movable.  Never mind that making it movable would also make it even more expensive.  This was one of those no-win dilemmas.  And no one could figure out what it meant that it was not movable.  Not being movable apparently did not mean it could not be moved.  It could be lifted and carried a short distance, which is all anyone anticipated would need to happen anyway.  It just couldn't be moved easily and often.  How often would we need to move it?  Somewhere in the range of never to very seldom.   But it wasn't easily movable. by a couple of guys, or one guy.

Heisenbottle spoke, McKenzie reps spoke, and Charlie Easton spoke.  It's hard to say there was any real conclusion.  The whole discussion was a bit of a moving target.  The bottom line is that the dais could be made more easily movable.  Yes, it could.  After a bit of what sounded to me like smoke and mirrors, it was concluded that whatever had to happen to make it more easily movable would somehow not increase the cost, or at most only negligibly.  I still don't understand whether the manipulation to make it more easily movable will make it less stable.  Heisenbottle equivocated about that.

Barbara Watts had lots of concerns, and lots of questions.  She really needed a very clear picture of what would make this dais more easily movable, how much it would change the price, and whether it would affect the overall quality and stability of this piece of furniture.  She grilled the McKenzie guys, Richard Heisenbottle, and Charlie Easton.  Finally, she got what sounded like reasonable agreement among them: the dais can be more easily movable, it won't cost more, or not appreciably more, to make it so, and it will be fully stable.  It may need an additional or stronger prop or brace here or there, but it very definitely can be done.  OK, done it was.  Barbara seemed reassured.

Roxy Ross moved to make the dais as it was originally proposed: "not movable."   I seconded.  No one else was interested, so Rox and I lost.  Bob Anderson then moved to make the adjustments described to make the dais more easily movable.  That's what Rox wanted to avoid, and so did I.  So we didn't second.  Oddly, neither did Watts.  So Dave Coviello, who is not allowed to make motions while he holds the gavel, but is allowed to second, seconded.  We voted.  Bob and Dave voted for Bob's motion, and Rox agreed to the adjustment.  It felt to her like a gentlepersonly compromise.  I held my now meaningless ground, still feeling like a movable dais was a mistake.  Barbara Watts voted against, too.  This seemed peculiar, although it no longer mattered.  Rox, wanting to pretty things up, asked for a revote, this time requesting a show of unmitigated commitment.  She wanted a unanimous vote.

Rox, you know how much I hate, hate, hate to disappoint you, but I accept that I got outvoted, and I lost, and I don't need this to be other than yours and Bob's and Dave's victory.  To me, unanimity does nothing.  So I'm sorry, my love, but I'm not changing my vote.

Dave, for no reason at all any more, turned to Barbara Watts, asking her to make it at least 4-1, in accordance with Rox's friendly and conciliatory sentiment.  No, said Barbara, she doesn't want any dais at all, unless, perhaps, Charlie Easton makes it, so she's not voting for it.

What?!  All that interrogation and squeezing of square pegs into round holes, and Barbara didn't agree to the modification?  It was she, more than anyone, who insisted on making this dais movable.  The whole effort was for her benefit.  And it was she, all this time in this meeting, who demanded to be accommodated and reassured.  She was never going to agree, no matter what McKenzie, Heisenbottle, or Charlie Easton promised and reassured her?  Why did a 30 minute meeting have to last an hour and a quarter?  I could have been home working, or watching cartoon re-runs on TV?  Wow, Barbara.

The Ant and the Grasshopper, or "First They Came for the Socialists..."

You must know the Aesop's fable of the industrious ant that saved for the winter, and the lazy grasshopper that didn't.  When winter came, the ant had food, the grasshopper didn't, the grasshopper begged for food from the ant, but the ant refused.  The grasshopper died.

And the famous poem by Martin Niemoller, about all the people who stood passively by, while the NAZIs rounded up group after group.  But the individuals didn't protest, because they were not part of the group being persecuted at that moment.  When the NAZIs finally came for those who had not spoken out on anyone else's behalf, there was no one left to speak out on theirs.

There's some discussion, and debate, here in BP about whether we have a problem with standing water.  The issue is what water remains after a heavy rain, and indirectly, about the water table.  Some of us are concerned, and others of us want to reassure ourselves that there is no meaningful, or out-of-the-way, problem.  Yet.

There's agreement they have a problem on the Beach.  There seems even to be some agreement that they have a problem in CNM, which borders us.  Not precisely here, though.  Not according to the rules.

I remember back in '05 and '06, when I started attending Commission meetings.  I had just moved here in July, '05.  I don't know if it was the '05 hurricanes, or just some unrelated pressure, but there were some of our neighbors along Griffing, on the canal side, who complained that the level of the canal would rise, and they would get backyard flooding, and even some water in their houses, seeping up from saturated ground.  No one complained about standing water in the street, though, and some say there still isn't, at least according to the rule-based definition of problematic standing water.

So some of us wait.  Presumably, they're waiting for some more incontrovertible evidence of a problem.  This approach calls to mind the failure to see a forest, for the trees.  Or the saying about penny wisdom, and pound foolishness.  Keeping one's head in the sand, or trying to navigate with blinders on.  If you're rolling your eyes at the profusion of cliches--two in the title of this post, and four more in the beginning of this paragraph-- some others of us roll our eyes at the effort not to see what seems so plain.

There's a contingent of Americans who don't believe in global warming, either.  Bleached and dead coral reefs, melting and shrinking ice masses, rising sea levels?  Nope, not global warming.  It must be something else.  Or maybe just a weird coincidence.  And when you talk to these people, it becomes clear that it's not really that they don't believe the earth is warming, per se.  It's what to do about it that bothers them.  They don't like the idea that money would have to be spent, and some of it would be government money.  That's their money, the money they resent paying in taxes.  The rest would be money paid by manufacturers, to retool to make products that use less energy, leading to higher prices for those products.  That's why they don't want there to be global warming.  Because they don't want to pay any more than they already do.

And so it is here in BP.  The reason some of us don't want us to have to acknowledge a problem with standing water, now or in the foreseeable future, is really that we don't want to have to pay to treat it or prevent it.

Are we waiting, as Americans seem always to want to do, for this to become a crisis?  And when it does, at whom will we be angry?  Whose fault will we want this to be?  And whose responsibility will we say it is to give us the money to address it?

Miami Jazz Cooperative

Normally, I wouldn't bother you about something like this.  The MJC is an organization of local jazz musicians and enthusiasts, and they have events.  One of their standing events is their Monday night "Rent Party."  It takes place in a bar/lounge (+/- upscale) called the Open Stage Club, at 2325 Galiano St, in Coral Gables.  It's a pretty nice event, goes on for a couple of hours, and only costs $10 to attend.  The music starts at 8:00.  You can buy drinks and limited food, if you want to, but no one bothers you if you don't.  Sometimes, they also have these events on selected Thursdays, too.

The musicians are almost entirely locals, and these are big local names in jazz.  I've been to this event, the "Rent Party," a few times, and apart from the trouble of going there, it's a good evening.

The MJC website, by the way, is miamijazz.org.

The reason I mention the "Rent Party" today is that on Monday, November 9, the pianist is Mike Gerber.  He and his wife Atlanta live in BP.  Mike is the iconic "blind jazz pianist," and having heard him a couple of times, I can tell you he's terrific.  You might have heard him once, too, since he did intermission duty once at a Food and Tunes a couple of years ago.

If you want something to do on Monday evenings, and especially if you want to hear and support your neighbor, Mike Gerber, I very definitely recommend the MJC Rent Parties.  They're good, cheap entertainment.

Have Amy and Mariana Got a Deal For YOU!

Here's what happened.  Amy Alonso and Mariana Ferro put in a pool.  They made some other improvements, too, and they really spiffed up their property.  Part of the pool project was a pool shed/cabana.

It wasn't really anyone's fault, per se.  Just some signals that got crossed.  It turns out that the wrong person gave Amy and Mariana the wrong advice, and they wound up buying a shed that was bigger than our Code permits for the place they wanted to put it.  It couldn't even be slid in with a variance.  By the time all of this came to light, the shed was already bought.  Amy and Mariana then had to get another shed, smaller than the first, and in keeping with our Codes.

Now, they own an extra shed they can't use.  And I have to say, it's a really nice shed.  It's 8 feet by 10 feet, with 8 foot walls, a hurricane grade hip metal roof, and a glass door.  It also has three windows.

This is what it looks like:

Amy and Mariana paid $4800 for this shed, and they would not like to lose money over the mistake.  If anyone is interested, for him- or herself, or for someone else you know, let Amy and Mariana know about it.  You can reach Amy at 305-975-6933, or you can e-mail her at jupiter247@me.com.  The shed is here in BP.  

This Town's Plenty Big Enough For Both of Us. Welcome, biscayneparker.

There's a new blog in the Village.  You'll find it at www.thebiscayneparker.blogspot.com.  Our neighbor, Milt Hunter, decided to start his own blog, and that's the address.  So far, Milt is only talking about the water situation in the Park (as in, whether we really have a water situation), but I'm sure he'll soon enough be onto other topics.  He already has a few followers, and no doubt he'll quickly have more.

Milt's blog is very classy.  It has a great layout, with nice background art and a smart look.  I don't know if the background photograph is one Milt took himself, but it would be cool if it is.

blogspot blogs are set up to accept comments from readers, and Milt's got them, too.  There's a lively and pleasing conversation going on about the water situation.

So take a look at Milt's blog.  Become a member, if you like it, and join in on the conversations.

Welcome, Milt, and welcome, biscayneparker.

What?!!! He Can't Be Serious! I Hope What We Need Is a New Police Chief.

I got from Chuck Ross, our CrimeWatch Chairman, an e-mail about crime events over this past weekend.  Our police chief, Cornelius (Rusty) McKenna, had the nerve to make the following statements about us:


THEFTS: Four cars were illegally entered by an unknown person(s) overnight. Two were on NE 116^th St near 7^th Ave, one was on NE 119^th St. near 9^th Ave, and one was on NE 115^th St. near 7^th Ave. All of the four cars were unlocked. A Dell Laptop computer was taken from one car, and a child’s lunch pail was taken from another car. All four of the cars were ransacked. If you have any information about any of the thefts, please contact Detective Lieutenant Pineda at 786-447-7122.


I have highlighted in red, and italics, and bold, the outrageous assertion Rusty made.  The outright nerve of this man.  What kinds of rubes does he think we are, anyway?  Well, what kind?  To accuse us--at least four of us-- of walking away from our cars, and going into our homes for the night, and not locking our car doors!  Does he think we were born yesterday?  Anyway, if the Chief, or even Chuck Ross, thinks it's important that we lock our car doors, why didn't they ever tell us that?

And as if this wasn't insulting enough, he also took the trouble to point out that one of our very own neighbors saw something very suspicious, and didn't even intervene personally!  Instead, the neighbor called 911.  The result of this tactic was to invoke police action, further resulting in the detention of someone who had two loaded handguns with him.  If Rusty is suggesting that BP residents themselves aren't courageous enough to confront an unknown trespasser who has two loaded handguns, I can't see how he could have been more patronizing.

Clearly, I intend to take all of this up with Heidi Siegel, our Manager.  Just wait until she finds out what Rusty is saying, for worse and for "better," about BP residents.

Agree to Disagree

Or, as the late Rodney King famously asked, "why can't we all just get along?"

What seems to happen to us all too often is that we take positions, we become entrenched, and we become embattled.  And the problem is not just that we don't see things the same way.  It's more than expected that that would happen.  The problem is that we have no mutual understanding.  One of us doesn't just disagree with another of us.  One of us rejects the other of us.  One of us has no idea what the other of us is talking about.  And doesn't care.

Battle lines seem to get drawn before there's anything about which to disagree.  An idea is unacceptable, or stupid, or toxic, or sabotaging, because of whose idea it is.  In that sense, every issue is an ad hominem issue.

Really, who cares about the dais?  Suppose a dais cost $24K, and suppose it lasted 48 years.  That's $500 a year for the dais.  That's less than 1/2 cent per house per year.  So what's the issue?  That we could have gotten a dais for $12K, and it would have cost $250 a year?  So instead of my paying, or your paying, less than 1/2 cent per year, we could have paid less than 1/4 cent per year?  Really?  BP resident Gavin McKenzie could make that dais, or BP resident Charlie Easton could.  Yeah, and?

In whose interest is it for Charlie Easton to build a dais, instead of for Gavin McKenzie to build one?  Certainly not Charlie Easton's.  The offer was that he would build it for free: he would volunteer his time and labor, and that of some others of our neighbors.  When George W Bush ran for president, there were people who advocated for "ABB:" Anybody But Bush.  The current effort to avoid the plan that includes Gavin McKenzie is a lot like that.  The proposed dais is too expensive.  It should be made movable (read more expensive), despite the fact that there is no reason to think anyone would ever want to move it.   (And amazingly, it's generally the same people who complain about the expense, and insist on making the dais movable.)  It should be made of some other wood than the one planned.  Any other wood.  We can adorn our "magical" newly renovated log cabin with a dais still composed of plastic folding card tables finished with Velcro-attached nylon skirting.  Anything on earth but what was proposed.

It's not about anything.  It's just fussing.  And it's really two problems.  One is the blind, ad hominem squabbling.  The other is the refusal on either side to comprehend the interests of the other side.  That's not to say that if either partisan understood the interests of the other partisan, they wouldn't disagree.  They probably would.  But it would be an honest disagreement, about real matters of philosophy.  Or particular interests.  But it's very different if anyone can say of someone else, I understand where you're coming from, but the other consideration seems more important to me.  Fair enough.  I wouldn't quarrel with anyone who just disagreed with me, as long as I knew they understood my position.

Last Tuesday night, at the Commission meeting, someone from 5th Avenue got mad at me.  Actually, it was more than one person, and they got mad at me before the meeting began.  It's very possible that one of the reasons they came to the meeting, which neither of them ever does, was to let me know how angry they were at me.

You know about the incident at 5th Avenue and 121st Street, about a week ago.  Someone from the CNM side of the street was arguing with someone else from there, and shots were fired.  One of the combatants fled down 5th Avenue in his car, and the other combatant shot at him while he was fleeing.  Fired shots clearly terrified BP neighbors, and one even struck the truck of a workman parked on 5th Avenue.

Two of those neighbors wrote to the Commissioners, not only to inform us of the matter (as if we hadn't heard all about it), but to let us know how insistent they were that something be done.  The preferred something was closure of the 121st Street median, the opening in which created the get-away path used by the fleeing and shot-at driver from CNM.  And two correspondents added an incentive for the Village and its Commissioners: we were now alerted, and if we don't somehow make something happen, quickly, any subsequent event, endangering and terrifying BP residents, will be our fault.  We will bear legal responsibility.  One of the writers made sure to point out he is an attorney.

I wrote back to these neighbors, some of whom I know, and some of whom I don't, to tell them that we all knew about this episode, that it would of course be taken very seriously and attended to in any way we could address it, but that it didn't do good for BP residents to threaten the Village.  What I got back immediately was a confrontation that neighbors had not threatened the Village.  What I got back at the Commission meeting was being glared at and addressed (dressed down), for how wrong I was to have said these neighbors threatened the Village, and for clearly having no understanding, let alone empathy, about the matter.

In the lobby, during the interval, I approached one of the people who was so mad at me.  I hadn't actually ever met nor seen him before, so I introduced myself and tried to smooth things over.  He was having none of it.  I said "I get it."  He said he had no reason to think so.  I pointed out I live on 119th Street, which has plenty of its own traffic issues, but he was not one bit assuaged.  He was sure I didn't understand his problem, since I wasn't enraged and swearing guaranteed and relatively expeditious correction.  It seemed clear he had neither understanding nor patience for the Village's dilemma-- we can't close the median, even if we agree it's the right thing to do, without cooperation from CNM, and there are reasons to think they are not in the mood to be cooperative with us.

These kinds of hostile stand-offs have become increasingly frequent in the Village.  I moved here in 2005, and there was already an established group of residents who occasionally threatened to sue the Village for one thing or another.  They have receded, but they have been replaced by another group, who either identify problems, or they invent them, and they threaten the Village with one thing or another.  Sometimes, it's as simple and routine as threatening Commissioners with being overturned at the next election.  Sometimes, it's a more energetic and concerted recall of them.  And it's always the accusation that they fail to understand and accede to the "will of the people."  (On one occasion, it was even suggested that if Commissioners or the Manager advocated for a new direction about something, the clear explanation was that they were taking graft.  Yup.)

Even if we subtract the invented controversies, there will always be disagreement among people.  It's anticipated, it's understood, and it's often even advantageous.  But there doesn't have to be a portrayal of injury, when there is disagreement, and when one person's position has to give way to another's.  Can't we just agree to disagree?

You Busy? You Know About Miami Light Project, in Wynwood? I Think I Might Have Mentioned.

The first time I went to MLP was about three years ago.  I had for some reason gotten turned onto a guy named Reggie Watts, and amazingly, he was coming to Miami.  To MLP, at 404 NW 26th Street (the Goldman Warehouse) in the Wynwood section.  So I packed up myself, and Chuck and Roxy Ross, and went to experience Reggie Watts.  Wow, what an experience it was.  I've become a regular at MLP ever since.  You know how it is when they know you?

MLP is a very funky organization.  Everything is off-beat and experimental.  I've seen plays and concerts there.  I meet people I would not otherwise encounter.  It's where I encounter 20-somethings with weird hair, hardware, and tattoos, but who want theater.  Yup, they exist.  Their parents and grandparents go to MLP, too.

The Goldman Warehouse, no doubt named for Tony Goldman, is in a district that was perhaps home to warehouses.  It's a lot of discount, "to the trade" showrooms of clothing now.  Some will sell to you retail, and some won't.  Austin Burke's Men's Wear is there someplace, too.  (If you're not young, and you've been in Miami for decades, you might remember the TV ads, in which you were promised that "little old Burky will fit you personally."  He'd peel off layer after layer of jackets, to show you the different looks.  I'm quite sure little old Burky is long gone by now.)  There's also a very cool shop that sells clothing and objets d'art from India.  It's called Rupees.  Operated by two very nice guys.  And there are murals on the buildings.  Loads of murals, super interesting.  It's continuous from the murals on Miami Avenue and NE 2nd Avenue.

Reggie Watts was my favorite show there.  My next favorite show was the "Tiger Lilies."  They're a British trio who paint up their faces and dress oddly and perform stuff that sounds like it was done during the time of German expressionism.  You watch and listen to them, and you think you're in the movie "Cabaret."  Google them and Reggie Watts, and you'll see what fun they like to have at MLP.  They love local talent, too, at MLP, and there's a resident playwright/director named Teo Castellanos, whom they frequently feature.  He did a terrific one man show, which he wrote, last year.

The room is small.  All seating is essentially excellent.  Tickets are usually $25, but you can pay $50, if you want "VIP seating."  VIP seating is at a little table (think cabaret) at the foot of the stage, and you get a free glass of wine, too.  I don't do this any more, because the wine isn't good enough to pay for, and all the seats are equally great.

Parking can be a bit of a problem, although it's not impossible.  The machines used to have two-hour limits, which was a regular problem when the shows were longer than that.  But now, I think they've extended the limits on the machines.  It's all on-street parking, though.

The other somewhat bad news is the cost of tickets for events at MLP.  I almost always wind up feeling like I've cheated someone, because they don't charge enough.  So I make up for it by giving them a donation in support.  I don't know how much it helps them, but it makes me feel like less of a thief.

The first concert this year is on Friday, October 9.  The lead performer is a jazz saxophonist named Carlos Averhoff, Jr, who appears to be the real deal.  You can google him, too.  I have about five or six other events to attend at MLP this season.  All cool stuff.

So think about it.  You can look up Miami Light Project, and see if anything appeals to you.  If you call them, you'll probably speak to Ivonne Batanero.  You don't need to know if she's a knock-out, right?  I mean, it has nothing to do with it.

My Hero. As Long As He Feels Safe.

From Noah Jacobs' facebook page:

Barcaloungers for all

Someone gave me the heads up that Dr. Jonas thinks I'm childish, and further suggests that the Dais is not that big an expense.... apparently if all the residents just pony up $20.00, this would be paid for no problem. If this was such an easy sell, why didn't he and the other elected officials put this up for a Village wide vote? I wonder...
As far as childish, that seems a curious sentiment coming from him, and I will respond in kind... I believe the proper response is, "it takes one to know one", or maybe "I know you are Dr. Jonas, but what am I".
Honestly, and a bit more seriously, Fred has pushed this $20 a person idea before. He suggested this when he was on the Biscayne Park Foundation. For some reason residents balked at the idea then. Amazingly, now that he is no longer the face of it, the Foundation has done a remarkably better job in regard to fundraising.
As a government official he has a responsibility as do the others to properly and judiciously manage the finances of the Village. Spending money on a throne so that he has a nice cushy place to put his fanny is not a well thought out expenditure of Village revenue.
But let me delve into the $20 a person idea, there are roughly 321,873,982 people in America; imagine that the federal government raises your tax rate to the highest in the Western World, (bear with me, I am going somewhere with this), then the IRS sends you a nice little letter that says they are asking that you give them an extra $20 for every one of you and your family. They intend to spend it in a way that makes certain Congressmen and Senators would get top of the line seating.

Does that seem like a good use of...hold on (20 * 321,873,982)=
$6,437,479,640? I didn't think so either....

The meeting is Tuesday the 6th, please go and have your voice heard... Oh by the way its still in the Rec Center, because the really fancy Annex with the place that might have thrones isn't finished inside, I wonder if this project is over budget? For a look at the Agenda, here is the link...
http://www.biscayneparkfl.gov/…/Agenda_ONLY_Regular_Commiss…

I'm so ashamed.  What could I say?:

Noah, if you want to fuss about something, bother to know what you're talking about.  It was $20 per household, not $20 a person.  And yes, you're right.  If each home contributed $20, we would very easily pay for the new dais, with money to spare, "no problem."

I'm curious about your "cushy...throne" reference.  This is not the first time I've heard it.  The proposed dais is a long table that will sit on the same floor as all the other seats and tables in the room.  My guess is that we will use the same chairs the Commission uses now.  Tell us more about your "cushy...throne" fantasy.  What did you think this was about?

As far as taxes are concerned, you are at a disadvantage.  You are not a property-owner here, and you don't pay taxes.  You have no reason to know that property values in BP are comparatively low, so that a given millage, which might sound high, is not a lot of dollars in taxes.

Also, our Village is unique.  It is unique in its charm, and it is consequently unique in some limitations it has.  It has an unusually limited way of raising revenue.  We have no commercial component here, so it is essentially the contribution each of us property owners makes that pays the bills.  Other income is based on residence, but not necessarily on ownership.  Thus, we have non ad valorem revenue, too, but most of the income is ad valorem.  So our limited ability to hold a high millage is what keeps us as afloat as we are, which is not exactly healthy, let alone luxurious.  The current Commission is trying to make improvements as we can.  We have a vision for the Park, and we understand that improvement requires commitment.  In the early days of the Village, if residents wanted a log cabin, they dug into their pockets to get the money for the materials to build one.  None of them would have tolerated the mean and mealy attitude you adopt.  Had you been here to spout off then as you're spouting off now, you would have been run out of town.

I am personally proud of the commitment I have made to this Village.  As is true of every other area of my life, I aim to give more than I take.  If I ask my neighbors to pony up $20 per house for a very worthy cause, you can be sure I commit much more than that myself.  I don't know how to answer you about the Foundation in its earlier years, when I was a Trustee of it.  We all did the best we could.  We worked hard, and we were as creative as we could be.  Did we disappoint you?  I'm sorry to learn of it.  Have you joined the Foundation yourself, or have you joined any of the Boards, to show your own commitment, and your skill in making things happen?  I don't know whether the Foundation right now is doing better, worse, or the same as we did then.  It never felt to me like a competition.  I do know that the Foundation has recently committed about $2000 to the Village, for a lighting project.  The job costs twice that, but the Foundation could not raise more than the $2000.

Raising money is not easy.  You often have to ask people who are not eager to contribute.  They'll fuss and resist over no more than $20.  If I remember correctly, when there was an effort to find money to pay for the mural outside the recreation center, and the private fund-raising came up woefully short, the Commission of which you were a part simply raided Village coffers for the rest, which was almost all of it.  Your neighbors all pleaded with you not to do it, and two of your Commission colleagues objected.  But you and your other two colleagues ignored everyone, and just snatched the money.  Is that what felt to you like a successful fund-raising effort?

When I have had a more personally inspired project, and I didn't need to depend on the formal participation of a group of other people, I have joined a few other ambitious Village residents and made things happen.  You will see three pieces of public outdoor sculpture around the Village.  The Village now owns two of them, and it is about to be presented with the third.  All of these represent the hard work and personal sacrifice of some of your neighbors, not, unfortunately, including yourself.  We spent a lot of time knocking on doors, we took "no" for an answer a lot (if we couldn't persuade the neighbor that "yes" was the right answer), and we paid more to compensate for those who paid less.  We would love to have been able to include your $20, or $200, or $5, but you never made anything available to us.  By "us," of course, I mean the Village.  The municipality where you choose to live for a little while.   The one to which you commit nothing, and from which you seem to demand a lot.

I Rest My Case, or You Can't Make This Stuff Up; Or Can You?

Letter written in response to Biscayne Times article.  Not sent to them, as they are not likely to publish it.


I'm still not sure what was Erik Bojnansky's point with his article about Biscayne Park and a collection of unconnected issues ("$24K Question," BT 10/2015).  I guess the title and the column inches suggest he wanted mostly to address the log cabin renovation, and the dais that is to be created there.  

Bojnansky cited BP resident Steve Bernard more than he cited anyone else.  He quoted three Commissioners, which I imagine is supposed to mean he spoke to them.  He did not speak to me, and I don't know if he spoke to the other Commissioner, either. But he did speak to Bernard.  Bernard was a Commissioner here some years back.  He no longer attends meetings, and he is not seen at information-gathering and opinion-expounding sessions, but that doesn't seem to prevent him from forming opinions.  And it seems not to prevent Bojnansky from relying heavily on him.

Bernard told Bojnansky, seemingly as a complaint, that the Village is not run by its residents any more.  Now, it is run by a professional manager.  What Bernard seems to have forgotten to mention to Bojnansky is that the change occurred on advice from a Charter Review Committee of Village residents, and that it was Bernard himself who chaired that Committee.  Bernard has never told anyone why he thought professional management was such a good idea, but then he spent the remainder of his time, both on and off the Commission, bucking the managers and lamenting, as he does here, that residents don't run the Village any more..

I was also unclear what to make of the juxtaposition of BP's having gotten a very large grant from the State, for construction of a new administrative building and renovation of the historic log cabin, and Bojnansky's quote of Commissioner Barbara Watts. who thought continued use of plastic folding card tables, covered in blue nylon drape attached with velcro, was good enough for us.  I wonder if we would have gotten that grant from the State if they had known our level of devotion and sophistication, or at least Commissioner Watts'.

Then, there's the matter of that "movable" dais.  Bojnansky quotes BP resident Barbara Kuhl as having thought it would be an advantage to have a dais that could be moved "out of the room."  I hope that's not really what she told Bojnansky.  No one has imagined such a thing.  The dais, unless it's those plastic folding card tables Commissioner Watts likes, will be a very heavy and well-made piece of furniture that isn't going anywhere.  At most, it could be moved toward a wall, but there's no way anyone could move it out of the room.  And there's no place to store it anyway.  This, of course, is assuming anyone would ever have a need to move it, which, according to imaginings of uses other than for Village meetings, would be almost unheard of.

Christina McKenzie, who originally said she didn't want a fixed dais, will be relieved to know that there will be no yoga classes in the log cabin.  They'll take place in the recreation building, as they always have.  And she doesn't want us to "get stuck on tradition?"  That was the whole point of the renovation.  In any case, we're then told she changed her mind.  The message here is what?  Where is Bojnansky going with this?

As for Bojnansky's glancing swipes about outsourcing sanitation, and annexation, we can talk about those alleged "some 300" people who didn't favor outsourcing.  I'll explain to Bojnansky about the petition that was the basis for this conclusion, but maybe his stomach can't take it.

If, as Bojnansky says, "some residents...fear that annexation will actually cost the Village money," does that mean that other residents don't think so?  How many on each side?   Did Bojnansky research the financials at all, or is he just passing along the views of "some" people?

I knew in advance about Bojnansky's article.  I followed from a distance, since he never contacted me.  I was expecting something that was at least questionable, as are so many BT articles.  Bojnansky did not, in that sense, disappoint.  Unless I was looking for something honest, remotely adequate, and balanced.  But the BT doesn't seem to work that way, especially when it comes to BP matters.

Fred Jonas

Commissioner,

Biscayne Park

A Two-Way Street

At the special Commission meeting to approve the budget last night, the usual topics came up.  Included were Recreation Department funding, and the dais.

Why do we have to provide recreation services and facilities, some complained, when so many of the users are not even BP residents?  And why should we spend such a lot of money for a dais, some asked?

There are two things to remember about these issues.  One is that the State of Florida just gave us over a million dollars to build our new Administration building and to renovate our log cabin.  The State neither gets nor asked anything for this money.  We asked them for it, and they gave it to us.  Every resident of and visitor to the state contributed to that money.  Not one of them, except those of us who live in BP, will realize any benefit whatsoever from the money they gave us.  I have yet to encounter any BP resident who is unhappy about the grant.

But when it comes time for us to provide for others, by making available a nice field, a basketball court, and a recreation building with restrooms and a drinking fountain, we suddenly don't believe in sharing.  It's all only about us.

The other thing to remember is about those two blocks that contain the fields, the courts, and the recreation building.  Arthur Griffing did not put that there.  Those two blocks were developed with grants, again, from the State of Florida.  And again, they didn't ask for much.  They just gave us the money, so we could build facilities for ourselves.

And yet again, when the memory of the grant gets slightly hazy, we want the facilities only for ourselves, and we resent the idea that neighbors from adjacent municipalities come to us to use these facilities.  It's fine with us if the residents of and visitors to the state share their money with us, but we don't want to share what we used the money for.

We considered restricting those two blocks to BP residents only, and maybe to charge anyone else (to inhibit them from using the facilities), but we found out we couldn't do that.  It seems the State did want one thing for its money.  It wanted us to make the facilities available to anyone.

Some years ago, when our Manager was Ana Garcia, there was an idea to reclaim the recreation facilities.  We contacted the State, to offer to pay back the money they gave us, in exchange for which we would control the facilities.  If we wanted them only for our own use, we could restrict them that way.  No, the State said, they did not want the money back.  They wanted us to continue to share with our neighbors.

As for the dais, if the State of Florida was willing to give us, free, over a million dollars to provide for ourselves a new building and a renovated old one, can't we contribute to the project, too?  The new Administration building and the log cabin mean nothing to any citizen of or visitor to Florida.  They will never see or experience them.  But they gave us over a million dollars to make this nice.  These buildings, and their appointments and furnishings, mean a great deal to us, and we will see and experience them all the time.  We can stop being so cheap and so niggling, and show the State that this means more to us than it does to them.  Because it does.  Or it certainly should.

By the way, in response to the complaint about the cost of this dais, if we were simply to pay for it, and not borrow the money, it would cost each home (not each resident) $20.  Once.  Done.  It's a very small amount of money for a beautiful piece of furniture that will be a wonderful credit to the log cabin and the Village, and that will last many decades.

Too Late for Children; Too Early for Grandchildren.

My daughter is 32.  She got married last year, and she lives in Boston.  She and her husband are planning for a pregnancy in 2016.

My son is 35.  He just got engaged, and he and his fiancee are planning to be married in 2016.  He lives in San Francisco.  Children?  Who knows?

I don't know what to say about my experience of children.  I loved them, of course.  They were my children.  I raised them, I love them, I care about them.  And I could tolerate their earlier childishness, because I knew they would outgrow it.  They're good people now.

But really, I don't frankly love "children," as a general phenomenon.  They're high maintenance, they're noisy, they're unruly, and they make mischief.  "You gotta love 'em" to put up with it.  And you have to know, as I knew, it's temporary.

Yesterday, one of my friends alerted me to a facebook page called "People for a Better Biscayne Park."  A couple of postings were directed at me personally, and they also included complaints about the log cabin renovation and specifically about the dais.

It turns out that the "People" who claim to want a "Better Biscayne Park" are primarily Elizabeth Jacobs, and secondarily her husband, Noah Jacobs.  It takes a bit of probing to get them to identify themselves.

What I discovered is that after the Jacobses go on about what gripes them, and take whatever swipes it pleases them to take, they get really quiet when someone else, like me, responds to them, answers their questions, and confronts their "Bevis and Butthead-"like approach to complaining.  Some of those responses were lengthy, pithy, and informative.  Soon enough, I also learned, they collapse into "You win," but they add a couple more swipes to that.  It seems that once you challenge them, you discover that their entire approach is ad hominem spitball launching, with no actual substance.  Except the spit.

The next thing that happens, which appears to be the last thing that happens, is that they then remove all of my comments (those that demonstrated how breathtakingly wrong these "People" were), but they claim I removed them, as if I would even know how to do that, if it's even possible for a commenter to remove his own comments.  Sadly, I think I must have made very clear to them how tech-unsavvy I am.  So no, kids, I did not remove my own comments.  I don't know how, and why would I?  You removed them, and you lied about it.

In any case, I now see what children I have to deal with, between the old days of my own children and the coming days of my grandchildren.  I wanted my children.  I signed on for that.  It was my pleasure and my honor to have been the part of their lives I was and continue to be.  I'll want and love my grandchildren, too.  I take full responsibility for my children, and I'll play a role in the development of my grandchildren.  But I didn't count on having to deal with the "People for a Better Biscayne Park."  These children are not my responsibility, and frankly, they are not welcome parts of my life.

Written to Biscayne Times 5/3/14. Never Printed, Of Course.

In reading the letters in the May, 2014, issue, I was struck by a curious pattern.  Three people wrote to you about a story about the Cushman school, and they all complained.  Their complaint was the same in each case: the author got it wrong.  They weren't complaining that the author came to different conclusions than they did, or that he interpreted differently than they did.  They said his facts were wrong.  The author of the next letter, about development on Biscayne Boulevard, made the identical complaint, about a different author of a different story.

I have written to you many times over the past few years, and my complaint has always been the same as your other letter-writers'.  BT writers seem not to be good about getting the facts correct.  I also remember a long response you got from Bunny Yeager, about a story done about her.  Same complaint: a long string of wrong facts.  There was an identical complaint that came from Morningside about some issue.

There are two questions about this pattern: what does it mean, and how does it happen?  Not being the publisher myself of a periodical, I don't know the rules, and I don't know the expectations.  Is it considered acceptable for authors/journalists to get a proportion of stories wrong?  The BT is not a daily, or even a weekly, and we would imagine authors have plenty of time to do adequately careful (not careless) research.  How do you want your readers to understand and absorb inaccurate stories?  These stories are presented as if they were intended to be informational.  For myself, it is not my reflex to assume they are merely fanciful and intended only to entertain.  Have I gotten it wrong?  If I have, the letters suggest I'm not the only one.

Then, there is the question as to how it seemingly so frequently happens.  If "facts" are presented, and they're wrong, should readers assume they were only made up by the author?  Why would an author invent facts?  Does he think a story would be more interesting if told a certain way, even if it's not true?  Sometimes, the "facts" result from quotes of people to whom the author spoke.  If "facts" are wrong, should we assume sources are not quoted accurately?  For some of these stories, when I know a lot about the content, I can see the author is highly selective about whom he interviews, or whom he quotes.  Is that the source of the trouble?  Too many eggs in one basket, and the author should have spoken to more people who might have corrected inaccuracies?

I have said before, and I will say again, you employ some very fine writers.  If they could only get their facts straight, or if they had an honest intention to do so, it would make a great difference to your readers.

And by the way, occasionally printing letters of complaint and correction is not nearly as valuable, or as fair, as simply getting it right to begin with.  And who knows how many of these letters you don't print.  I know you don't print most of mine.

Fred Jonas



Apparently, Erik Bojnansky of the BT is sniffing around looking for information for a story.  It seems the story is to be about the dais, but also about outsourcing sanitation and annexation.  Bojnansky has spoken to at least one of the Commissioners, but not to me.  It is of course unknown who alerted the BT/Bojnansky to these situations and controversies.

That's What I Should've Said. Yup, More About the Dais.

At last night's Commission meeting, I told Ed Chisholm I agreed with him, that the dais cost a lot.  I pointed out that it costs more than did my 2014 Volkswagen, which I bought new.  I did tell him that.

I said that he was one of many to complain about the cost of the dais, but that every time someone complained, and said they knew someone who did that kind of work, I responded in the same way: bring 'em.  Barbara Watts said she knew Larry Newberry, a BP resident who could make a dais.  William Pierce said he knew people...  I told them this was great, and they should have their sources make us a proposal, now, before we finalize our commitment to MacKenzie.  It gets really quiet once I ask for that kind of participation.

Ed Chisholm said what Barbara Watts says, and what some others say: why don't we just use what we already have: plastic folding card tables with nylon skirting attached with Velcro?  Who needs a $24.5K dais?  And again, they cited that log cabin we've gone to trouble and great expense to renovate, and even reclaim.

Here's what I should've said.  I should've said no, absolutely not.  The State of Florida paid a lot of money for this restoration, and we committed to pay plenty more.  We've put ourselves in debt over this Village Hall construction, and the log cabin renovation.  Barbara Watts likes to call the renovated log cabin "magical."

So no, we're not going to fall down on the completion of the job.  We're not going to adorn this "magical" room with a dais of plastic folding card tables, hidden by nylon skirting attached with Velcro.  We're not going to show off the BP way of doing things: cheap and lacking in self-respect.  I won't have it.  Roxy Ross won't have it.  It looks like David Coviello won't have it.  If you've ever been to Bob and Janey Anderson's house, or even driven by the outside of it, you'll know that cheap and lacking in self-respect is not how they do things, or how they live, either.

It's enough of people wanting only not to spend money, people who don't care how they live, and how their surroundings look, as long as they don't have to pay anything, or do anything.  This is our home.  It's our Village.  If Barbara Watts thinks the renovated log cabin is "magical," then we'll maximize the magical effect it can have.   And I don't think the State Legislature and the Governor would have given us the money, if we had told them we'll do only what they pay for, because we ourselves really don't care, we can't be bothered, and it's worth only someone else's money, not our own.

No, Mr Chisholm, we're not going to complain and resist our way out of finishing this project, and doing it right.  We're all going to step up.  Even the people who, when there's a problem on their property, and someone has to spend money, want to know whose money is going to be spent, because it most certainly shouldn't be theirs.  We don't need to rehash that ugly tale.

I feel sure you didn't vote for me, Mr Chisholm.  I hope you didn't.  You shouldn't have.  I'm not your type of Commissioner.  I'm the guy who wants the Park to be "The Best We Can Be."  And if I have anything to say about it, it will be.  At least, it will be the best I can help make it.

That's what I should've said.


PS: I'm just using your comments as an example, William.  You're a very good guy, a great neighbor, and you were a good sport about the last post.  My very best regards to you and Kim.

Is It All In the Wrist?

Last week's Commission meeting was preceded by the receipt of a collection of e-mails.  Barbara Kuhl had formulated an opening statement and four questions, she had passed them along to Steve Bernard, Steve sent them to an unknown circulation, and about 10-15 people's responses were sent to the Commission.  Only one of the responses was sent to Commissioners directly by the respondent, and all the rest were sent by respondents to Barbara, who then sent them to Commissioners.  We have no idea how many people received the questions, whether any information other than the questions and the brief introduction to them was made available to those on the circulation, and whether Barbara received any responses she did not forward to Commissioners.

This is what Barbara/Steve sent their circulation:

Hi Everyone,

As you probably know our Log Cabin is being renovated.  Commission meetings will be held there when it's finished and there have been some discussions about the dais.  Right now it seems like a majority of the Commissioners are in favor of having a fixed, permanent dais.  The cost, according to our Village Manager is $24,000.  

The Village has borrowed $350,000, and will still need another $135,000,  to complete the restoration of the Log Cabin.  Some residents are not in favor of spending $24,000, for a dais.  Some residents would like to have it movable so that the Log Cabin can be used for other purposes.  The dais as proposed will take up approximately half of the Log cabin.  The plans for the Log Cabin and the dais location are attached.

At the last budget meeting Mayor Coviello said that he's heard from residents in favor and opposed to these issues.

We would like to hear from more residents.  

Please tell us:

1.  Do you think it's a good idea to have a permanent, fixed dais? 

2.  Do you think the dais should be redesigned so that it's movable?  

3.  Do you think we should spend $24,000, now to build the dais? 

4.  Do you think we should postpone the expenditure? 

The responses the Commissioners received were more or less unanimous.  They weren't quite unanimous, in that some people did not answer every question, but there was a strong trend among responses.  It seems no one whose response was sent to the Commissioners wanted a fixed dais, everyone wanted a movable dais, everyone thought the cost was too high (outrageously so, it seems), and everyone thought the expenditure should be postponed.  Again, that trend represents all the answers given and forwarded to Commissioners.

I have, in effect, conducted a poll of my own.  It is represented by the blog post just before this one.  I have no idea what the circulation is, except that I directly inform about 75 people of new posts.  Viewership statistics suggest that more than 75 people are aware of blog posts.  In addition, a website called Feedspot picks up this blog, and there is no way for me to know how many people they inform of new posts.

What I know is that the average viewership when there is no new post is about 20 views a day.  The post I published just over 60 hours ago has received about 200 views.  So there have been about 150 views attributable to the presence of the last post.

Of those 150 or 200 people, four have chosen to leave comments thus far.  I do not control comments.  I do not delete any, and I do not adjust any.  You can read the comments for yourself.  Of the four, it seems all of them agree with the fixed dais.  Some are concerned about the cost of the dais, but none rules it out completely.  One seems to consider whether a postponement might be appropriate, in order to save up for the expensive permanent dais.

These kinds of results are more or less opposite to those transmitted by Barbara Kuhl.  The obvious question is why the results are so different.  Could Barbara/Steve be tapping a population of respondents different from those who become aware of blog posts?  Some of their respondents are people who are not on my circulation, but others are on my circulation.  Those who receive notices of new posts from me, and who also received the questions from Barbara/Steve, apparently chose to respond to Barbara/Steve, but not to comment on the blog post.  The post, by the way, requests an opinion, just as did the Barbara Kuhl letter.

As I read Barbara's letter/questions, they seem a bit slanted.  In its way, so is the blog post.  (For example, Barbara says the proposed dais will take up about half of the room.  I say it's about a third.  It looks like about a third to me.  But if it's not precisely a third, it's very clearly not half.  So the "truth" might be somewhere in between.)  But either survey was supposedly open for any response of any persuasion.  Again, we have no way of knowing if Barbara got any responses she did not share with the Commission.  What we also don't know is if there was any other information Barbara shared with her recipients, but she did not include it in the letter attached to the questions.  I raise this possibility, because Barbara was involved in a petition drive a year or so ago, and it turned out that those who were asked to sign the petition were apparently given more information about the issue than was contained in the petition.  This is of course very normal for petition drives.  The problem was that some of the information given, in the petition and in the additional explanation, was wrong.  We don't know if a version of that happened here, too.

But coming back to the two sets of responses about the dais, there is an interesting peculiarity between them.  Barbara made the responses she sent to Commissioners public record.  In addition, one of the respondents explicitly asked that his letter (more than simple answers to the four questions) be read at the Commission meeting last week.  His response was not read, because there was abundant discussion during the meeting, it was decided not to take the time to read all 10-15 of the responses, and they were public record anyway.  But because the response is public record, because this was the one response sent directly by the respondent to the Commissioners, and because the respondent specifically asked that his response be read openly at the meeting, it's worth a closer look.  The respondent was our neighbor, William Pierce.  Funny enough, there is a blog commenter who calls himself William.  I am not in a position to know if "William" is William Pierce, but I do know that William Pierce is on my circulation of people to be notified of new posts.  And how many people named William go by William?

Here's what's interesting about the responses from William Pierce and "William."  William Pierce says he got at least some of his information about this issue by watching a transmission of the 8/11/15 budget workshop.  He had some concerns with the design of the dais, in that he did not want it to be usable for only one purpose.  Mostly, however, he was concerned with the cost.  He felt it was exorbitant and not within the Village's budget, and this was a greater crime if the dais was not (re)movable, so that the room could be adapted for other purposes.  He seemed also a bit concerned that a new, fancy, and imposing dais somehow represented self-aggrandizement on the parts of the particular Commissioners in office now.

"William" who commented in the last blog post was also concerned with the cost of the dais, but he was more gentle and more generous, if even a bit more tentative, in his criticism.  He reiterated his willingness to keep temporary card tables as the Commission/Board surface for another year.  Now, though, he makes reference to some "brain-storming" he has been doing with some of his neighbors.  That brain-storming has led him to understand that even a movable dais is not removable, and moving it confers little or no benefit with respect to his idea to clear the room for other functions.  But with which neighbors did he brain-storm?  In the post, I said a movable dais was only slightly movable, and was not removable, but William didn't talk to me, other than to read the post.  Did he talk to someone else?  He read and made reference to the comments before his.  It seems that whatever he, if it was he, responded to in the Barbara Kuhl letter/questionnaire did not include an understanding that a movable dais is only slightly movable, and not removable.  William was also more willing to consider spending $24.5K than William Pierce had been to spending $24K, and William suggested that maybe a fixed dais would be the better choice, since adapting the dais to make it move would also make it cost more.  "William" is not at all accusatory or insulting to Commissioners, as William Pierce seemed almost to be, and he even suggested ways Commissioners could better engage their neighbors to persuade them to agree to the fixed, expensive dais.

So why did William, assuming he and William Pierce are the same person, change his approach?  Why were Commissioners told only of critics in response to Barbara Kuhl's outreach?  Why did some people who were critical of the dais in response to Barbara's outreach, but who are on the blog circulation, not also criticize here?  Their opinion, even criticism, was requested.

Barbara has a theory about this phenomenon.  She has shared it with me.  Her theory is that people are reluctant to comment in the blog if their comments are not in agreement with the post author (usually me), because they're afraid I or some other author will argue with them, or even insult them in some way.  But some people, even Barbara, do in fact share disagreement in blog comments.  And does the same phenomenon apply regarding Barbara's request for feedback?  Would she bury or confront a response she didn't like?  Or would someone be afraid to disagree with her (and Steve), as she thinks they're afraid to disagree with me?  We don't know.  I came to find out indirectly about Barbara's request for feedback.  For whatever reasons, I am not on Steve's circulation, but someone else sent it to me.  I would have responded in disagreement with Barbara's very clear preference, but since I myself am a Commissioner, I felt it would be inappropriate to reply to a petition.

It's a curious difference between Barbara's and my requests for feedback.


PS: In her introduction to her four questions, Barbara says that David Coviello reportedly heard from residents both in favor of and opposed to the dais.  But Barbara didn't report that she heard from anyone who was in favor of the dais.  What accounts for these discrepancies?