OK, You're Up. Whaddaya Got?

Annexation might be dead for BP.  It certainly got a big punch to the solar plexus last week.  It seems clear there will be no further consideration of it until at least the next County Commission.  Thereafter?  Who knows?

Strangely, it seems to me, we're not hearing from the anti-annexers.  They should feel victorious, even though they had little or nothing to do with annexation not going forward this year.  If I had thought annexation was the disaster they claimed to think it was, I would be gleeful.  I'd be pumping my fists, and telling everyone I know what a complete relief it is that annexation will not be proceeding, at least for now.  I wonder if I would be saying "I told you so."

We heard them argue, and plead, and threaten.  They wrote e-mail blasts, made sure to accuse everyone they could in places like "Nextdoor Biscayne Park," and spoke at Commission meetings.   They were very visible and very vocal.   You couldn't exactly say they won, but they certainly got what they alleged was their way.  So where are they?

At the last Commission meeting, at the end of it, David Coviello turned to Barbara Watts-- one of the anti-annexers-- and seemed to ask her partly in passing and partly in resignation to help us all figure out what we're now going to do about our fiscal and functional problems.  You remember them, don't you, Barbara?  They're what annexation was all about.  We weren't trying to do this, because we're empire-builders.  This was about something real.  It was to strengthen and help the Village.

So it seems to me it's now time for the anti-annexers to explain to us plan B.  It's their turn.  We're all listening.  They're now going to show us what we all overlooked all this time.

I'm so eager to hear from them.  This blog would be a great place for them to show us what their plan looks like.  Or if this space seems unsafe to them, as one of them has said in the past, maybe they'd like to use "Nextdoor Biscayne Park."  They never before had any trouble communicating with us, to let us all know what a terrible thing annexation would be.  I'm sure it will be even easier now, to tell us all how to proceed.  Before, we thought we were on a mission, and we might not have given them our full, undivided attention.  They have it now.

Why Be On the Up and Up, When Getting Way Down and Really Dirty Works Better? Annexation. Or Not.

Yesterday turns out to have been a most interesting day.  At first, it was only disgusting and infuriating, and we couldn't appreciate how really interesting it was.

The County Commission meeting was scheduled to start at 9:30 AM.  I was advised that they really never start on time.  But I got there at 9:00 anyway.

Sure enough, there's way more milling around than respect for people's time, and the meeting did not start until around 10:00.  Boy, do they love their presentations down at the County Commission.  They take lots, and lots, of time with them.  Eventually, they get to the actual business of the meeting.

They allowed speakers for the first issue, which was the County's TRIM.  Everyone gets two minutes to speak, which doesn't sound like much, until you find out how many people want two minutes each.  My day job started at about 2:15 PM yesterday, and I had to prepare for it, so I left at 12:45.  The County Commission had heard the last of the TRIM speakers, but it hadn't yet deliberated about the matter.  So I have no idea what the maximum TRIM was said to be.  It might not be accurate anyway, since it can be lowered after the maximum was set.

At some point (I didn't ask when), the County Commission was ready for item 5B on the Agenda: the BP annexation application.  We were able to go forward with it, because our application was complete, it was no longer contested (since CNM withdrew by a Council vote of 4-1, with Carol Keys dissenting), and we had a sponsor.  Our own regional County Commissioner, Sally Heyman, was pleased and eager to advocate for our annexation.  Not only that, but we heard through some version of the grapevine that there were six more County Commissioners who were disposed in our favor.

What I'm about to describe is based on what other people who remained at the meeting told me, as well as what I learned in talking to Sally Heyman today.  I asked Sally if what she told me was to be off the record, and she said absolutely not.  I said I supposed she did not want her name used, and she told me to use it freely.

David Coviello made our opening presentation, explaining what this was about (as if County Commissioners didn't already well know).  I'm told by at least three people, including Sally Heyman, that his presentation was excellent and impressive.  David was given 8-9 minutes to make our case.

At that point, the Chair of the County Commission, Jean Monestime, suddenly realized there were dignitaries, or something, in the audience, and he decided it would be better to interrupt the BP issue, and introduce the dignitaries.  One observer found this digression to be very disturbing, and he felt the Chair seemed almost to want to throw the presentation off course.  After Chairman Monestime finished playing with his guests, he allowed the meeting to return to the issue at hand.  Several other presentations from representatives of BP (including Heidi Siegel, who I'm told did a wonderful job advocating for us) followed, and the feeling was that the issues had been adequately spelled out.

On the "other side" was a collection of people.  Our own Steve Bernard told the County Commission he had collected 23 (twenty-three, not 2300, and not 230) signatures which he said were from BP residents who did not favor annexation.  CNM Councilperson Carol Keys presented several assertions that both Sally Heyman and CNM's own attorney(!) had to repudiate, because they were false.  Chuck Ross told her the same thing, and she just stared at him.  Also in the room, taking up a large portion of the room, more than any other presence in the room, was an army of people wearing identical red tee shirts.  The shirts said something like "Vote NO Biscayne Park Annexation" on the front, and something like "Concerned Citizens of North Miami" on the back.  The fact is, none of us knew who these people were.  They didn't speak, but the person who spoke for them was the developer or owner of one of the apartment complexes in the annexation area.  He didn't want his taxes to go up.  After the meeting, those people were seen being given "vouchers" and treated to a bus ride to who knows where.  Back under whatever rock they came from, no doubt.

At the end of all of this (who knew it was just a charade?), Sally Heyman made "the motion:" she moved to approve our annexation application.  Amazingly, there was no second. Going once, going twice, motion dies for lack of a second.  And Jean Monestime quickly ditched any further consideration or questioning.

We didn't know this was all a joke.  Sally Heyman didn't know it was a joke.  But Jean Monestime and the rest of the County Commission knew it was a joke.  I called Sally to ask what the joke was about.  I figured she must know by now.  She did.

Sally was apologetic for what happened, and she was appreciative of all the time and dedication we expended for this annexation effort.  She said everyone did a great job.  Yeah, but why did no one even second your motion?   We heard six others besides you were in favor.  Where were they?  Well, Sally explained, County Commission elections are coming up.  Not for her, though, since she has apparently termed out.  But the people running aren't termed out.  They want to get re-elected.  They need to advertise themselves.  They need...money.  The lobbyist for the developer was there, and he had greased plenty of palms.  Sally confided in me (but she allowed me to tell you this) that they gave money to her in the past, too.  But she says her vote (for us) is not for sale.  That kind of ethic is evidently not universal.

So that's what happened to our application.  It was bought away from us by someone who didn't want his profit margin encroached upon.  Ain't that just the way?

Better Late Than Never? Not Really.

Today is Wednesday, July 20, 2016.  We have a special Commission meeting tonight, and probably the main Agenda item is the final vote to select the new Manager.

At 8:54 this AM, I received an e-mail from one of our neighbors.  The e-mail was entitled "Don't know where you stand, but..."  The first sentence of the e-mail was "Most likely, you have already decided which of the three candidates you would like to see as our new Manager."

Yup, that's right.  By now, I have decided.  I haven't voted-- I won't, until tonight-- but I have made my decision.

I think we advertised for this position in April.  We seated two review groups, and between these two groups, we reduced 47 qualified applicants to 12 semifinalists.  This reduction occurred by May 25.  On May 6, I had published a blog post, asking anyone with special interest, but especially anyone who was thinking of running for Commission this November, to contact me, so I could give them an inside track.  No one ever responded to this offer.  At a Commission meeting on June 6, we reduced the 12 to four finalists.  One of them dropped out very quickly.  I privately interviewed the three remaining finalists, and on June 24, we had formal in-person interviews-- one on one Commissioner to finalist-- in rotation.  The public interviews, before everyone who attended the open meeting, occurred on July 12.  That was eight days ago.

So today, one of our neighbors-- one in whom I happen to have exceptional confidence-- sent me an e-mail, offering to tell me her preference, and how she decided as she did.  And she correctly noted that it was "most likely" that I had already made up my mind.

Why do people wait until the last minute, until in their own estimation(!), it is in some sense "too late," to say what they want?  I wanted to know.  I asked!  I got nuthin' back.  So now, when I've already made up my mind, she wants to give me her opinion?

Of course, I'll listen.  I wrote back to tell her what I thought, and why I thought so, and to what extent I agreed with her observations and reasoning, and I offered to share the results of the background investigation for which we paid.  But why now?

This reminds me of the great sanitation debate.  I had made clear I thought outsourcing was best, but I said I would vote against it, if 1) a sizable proportion of our neighbors really didn't want it, and 2) they agreed to pay whatever not outsourcing would cost.  I put out a blog post about a month before the vote, asking for these two things.  What we got was an alleged petition, presented at the meeting when the vote was to occur, and reportedly a "rush job," only begun three days before the meeting.  It didn't have to be a rush job.  I had said a month earlier exactly what I needed in order to vote not to outsource.  I would have helped craft the petition statement, since I was the one who needed the reassurance.  But again, I got nuthin', until it was unquestionably too late.  As it turned out, I later examined and vetted the petition, and I found out it was mostly phony, so it wouldn't have helped the "let's not outsource" cause anyway, but whatever it was would have needed to be presented long before it was.

What's the point in waiting until the information presented doesn't matter any more?  Even information I get now might influence my vote several hours from now, but it's not a fair opportunity to consider and discuss it.  Do you realize how much time and trouble I've taken to get where I am?  Do you think that telling me, now, that I should see it your way instead, will have a lot of influence in possibly changing my mind?  (I didn't say whether I agreed or disagreed with our neighbor.  I mean, I told her, but I'm not specifying it here.)  And in each of the cases I mentioned, I actually specifically asked for input well in advance.

"Perception is Reality."

We had an exceptionally good CrimeWatch meeting this AM.  You should not have missed it.  The whole meeting was a presentation by our Police Chief, with Q&A after what he had to say.

The Chief offered us a number of important insights.  For one thing, our actual rate of victimization by criminal acts is very low.  For another, specifically our rate of motor vehicle accidents is very low.  The Chief said most municipalities would kill (well, not exactly kill) for a rate like ours: 2-3 accidents per month, almost no injuries.  Of course, we're also tiny and relatively compact, with few thoroughfares, so we wouldn't expect much of a rate of MVAs.  But still, the Chief reassured us we should be relieved and proud to know we're so safe, from crime in general and from MVAs.  The Chief also pointed out that until two recent arrests, a significant majority of our typical crimes-- burglaries-- were committed by two people.  One is now incarcerated for 4-5 years, and the other was more recently arrested.  So we were low to begin with-- fourth best in the County-- and we're about to be lower.  FYI, the Dade municipalities that are better than we are are Indian Creek Village (an island, gated), Golden Beach (I think also gated now, and both of them quite awash in money, to hire as much monitoring and enforcement as they like), and Virginia Gardens.  The latter is a tiny Village (a bit smaller than we are) just north of the airport.  I have no idea why their crime rate is so low.

I know all of this, because the Chief stated it very clearly in the meeting.  But the meeting was called specifically because of concerns raised by a variety of Village residents.  They felt that our crime rate was up, and that enforcement, and monitoring, were down.  The word "perception" was mentioned several times by different BP residents during this meeting.

Clearly, there was a discrepancy.  The Chief told us our crime rate was very low, and about to get considerably lower, owing to the two arrests, (and lower still, if people would lock their doors), but some BP residents had the feeling the crime rate was increasing.  One related statistic was the rate of "clearance" of crimes.  "Clearance" occurs when an arrest is made.  In the recent past, we were said to have had a shockingly high clearance rate.  Today, on paper, it is notably low.  This can give the impression that crime was very recently under excellent control, and now, it is out of control.

But the Chief explained, sort of, that what we're seeing is a few different things.  One was mislabeling of crimes, and another was whether an appropriate arrest had been made.  (The Chief did not address this latter point, but we already know about it.)  Yet another was the current Chief's decision, on the part of his staff and the Village, not to report crime events as "cleared," if he and the Department are still working on it.  The Chief was never clear as to why an event was not considered cleared, if it had the features that could allow it to be considered cleared, and what it means to call an event cleared, if it's still being worked on.

All of this aside, there was still the matter of perception.  One BP resident said that just a few years ago, if he called 911, a cruiser was there before he hung up the phone.  Now, he says it can take 45 minutes or more for a cruiser to arrive.  It was not made clear why he had a frequency of calls to 911.  But his perception, although certainly close enough to actual reality, if we assume that his description is accurate, was that police, at least as accessed through 911, are less attentive and prompt now than they were not long ago.

Other BP residents had other versions of their frustrating perceptions.  For example, some said they felt the police were more distant or detached than they were in the past.  Specific indicators were things like whether a cop on the beat (in a car) waved at them and stopped to say hello.  Another was that the windows of our police cruisers now seem to be tinted, making it hard for a resident outside the car-- on foot-- to see who was on duty, see the officer's face, and be able to tell whether the officer was waving or otherwise acknowledging or responding to the BPer's presence.

So it felt to some of us as if we were more endangered, and that "crime" was increasing, when this doesn't appear to be true.  And people more or less demand a response to what they perceive to be true, even if it isn't true.  The one exception offered was when one of our neighbors recalled the occasional "Click It Or Ticket" campaigns initiated by the prior Chief, and she said in what sounded like an authoritative way that crime was decreased as a result of those campaigns.  (Our current Chief told us today that from his perspective, and presumably based on a career as a policeman, the main underlying purpose of giving traffic tickets is to lower the risk of accidents.  Since the Chief also told us we have a very low rate of accidents, and if we accept his theory, we should conclude that it doesn't matter how many or how few tickets are issued, since the goal has been achieved.  This also assumes that we believe a Police Chief and career officer knows more about police work and theories than we do, and that we should somehow accede to what such a person tells us.)

I don't know what the reality about this was any more.  Our prior Chief told us, in what sounded like the most logical possible way, that stopping people to ticket them for something, or arresting someone, even if the arrest didn't stick, would reduce crime, by discouraging criminals from coming here (too much trouble and too much risk). But he also told us about our "clearance rate," which turned out not to be true.  So was our crime rate lower, as a result of  "Click It Or Ticket?"  I don't know.

Today, the Chief shared with us a form of reality.  Unless we don't believe him, we have to consider what he told us.  But in contrast to that reality, some of us also entertained, and elevated,  our own perceptions.  And we wanted them treated as the equivalent of reality.  I put the title of this post in quotes, because it is a known phrase.  It might be a matter of philosophy.  It might even be a mistake.  But it's common enough, and well enough known, to be an accepted phrase.  We have to decide what to do about the intrusion of perception, especially when we are informed of a reality that doesn't match it.  At some point, and at some level, we have to over-ride, or even dismiss, one of them.  Unless we have plenty of discretion ($) and can do something like hiring lots of police officers, because we somehow feel unsafe, even if we're not unsafe.  But since some of us don't like spending money, either, we have a dilemma.

Here's How I See It, by Andrew Olis.

I support annexation.  Everyone in VoBP knows we are doing this and have been working on it sloowwwwly for years.  The letter a resident sent out a few days ago was misleading. FACT- If we don’t get it, some other Municipality (North Miami) will.  Their taxes go up no matter who gets it.  Do we need to have a tight plan in place?  Yes, as it will affect our codes, building department, planning and zoning, etc, as well as police. But we need the commercial component to add to the village.  Those 2  visible apt complexes are  very pretty and are a compliment to the Biscayne park feel. Complete with the Craftsman home with coral Fence Columns.  El Portal and the Shores have commercial.   We need it too, but without it, like a  stock portfolio that is not diversified, you lose.

Driveways/ Swale:  Although the original Ordinance was altered by the Commission, and then at that point became unclear on certain points, the Ordinance needs to stay as it was intended. It just needs to be cleaned up/clarified? returned to how we submitted from code review and re-checked by the attorney.  This was already hammered out with 2 or 3  joint meetings of the volunteer Boards- with workshops and public meetings where we had resident input and at least a year of work.  Several bottom lines here: In the past, properties were better maintained, driveways and parking surfaces were maintained, and people in the Park generally had better pride in their properties.   Then, there were years of lax Code enforcement- or selective Code enforcement.  Two facts are plain and clear: that residents ALWAYS were supposed to have parking on their property--old and new Code!-- and also, the amount of parking formula was ALWAYS there, in the old and new Code.  This is black and white.  But because it was not enforced in the past, those who were unaware of the requirements say we had no restrictions, and now it is a hardship.  Well, in my opinion-- mirrored by many-- if you cannot afford a home and  all costs associated with it, you need to make other arrangements as to what you can afford.  There are minimum standards that MUST be met to live in any nice community and we ALWAYS had these standards.  The appearance of our Village correlates directly to property values.  No one wants to see dirt in the front yard, or tire tracks or a dirt patch where cars parked on the lawn.  It needs to be an approved parking surface. And it is not fair that these residents are utilizing paved-over swales and don’t have a driveway.  We require parking on your property: we always did! The amount of this dirt and trashy  overall appearance of some front yards, and especially swales, has steadily increased to the point where it is an eyesore and necessitated this new Ordinance!

The numbers speak for themselves: our tax base has again risen.  This directly becomes money for the Village.  Rising home prices are bringing in potential residents that don’t want to see dirt, and many are put off by it.  We need to continue to correct our Village appearance to make it prettier for the residents as well as the potential new residents that increase the tax base with their new purchases.  It really looks like we live in unincorporated Dade on some blocks: embarrassing!  Remember- we have NO parking on the the narrow streets- we must have swale parking- with limitations as already set and with approved surfaces as already set.  This is not even an option to bring up and bluntly a waste of time. The only people that I have encountered that are against the Ordinance are  some of the ones that have to fix their  non-conforming properties, and they simply think their dirt or weeds or pieces of rocks and concrete driveways or swales are charming. This does not mean slum-like and trashy.  We need to improve!!!

added comments..

Our roads are crumbling fast. The deterioration is happening all over the Village.  Patching will not be enough very soon.  It is the Village’s responsibility to keep the roads in good condition, and it needs to be budgeted for or worked on almost immediately. We are famous for deferring things- I hit a pothole on my corner a few months ago that dislodged the wires from my car stereo.  I had to pay for a repair shop take apart the dash to fix it. Road/corner was fixed but just a band aid. Right before our house on NE 5th ave- there is a tree root lifting the asphalt.  It's a great natural speed bump, but soon the road will crumble there: a launch pad for those that are unaware. There are many of those bumps around.

Our entry signs:  I am OK with the signs and the solar illumination poles.  The poles may not be pretty- and solar never are- but they work well, and are just another post in the median.  We already have them and don’t need to pay for the power- wonderful! Do I agree that the solar poles were not vetted and approved/paid for correctly?  Yes- but this is another issue.  Lets move on!

Thanks for reading my perspective and opinions.  I just put it out there.....

Andrew Olis

SCENES FROM LAST WEEKENDS ACTIVE SHOOTER WORKSHOP

Last Saturday we had a great Active Shooter Defense Workshop with ten participants from the upper eastside of Miami Dade. We covered subject such as:

• What to do if an active shooter shows up at your workplace or school
• What to do if you are trapped and can't escape
• What to do if you and your friends are confronted by the active shooter

Webster dictionary defines an active shooter as:


An Active Shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearms(s) and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims.


We viewed a short video by the LA County Sherriff's office and then spent time going over the prescribed Active Shooter Plan promoted by the Department of Homeland Security. Afterwards we trained in Krav Maga VIP protection techniques. These techniques cover situations that are best suited for an active shooter emergency. For example running up from behind or side disarming an active shooter from a hidden area thus saving another persons life. These techniques focused on attacking and active shooter with a long gun (assault rifle), a sidearm (pistol) and how to overwhelm the active shooter using the pack mentality often used by the Military and Police.


At the end of the workshop the participants were placed in a situation where they were aware of an active shooter but were only given 5 minutes to formulate a plan. After the five minutes were up they were confronted with an armed active shooter with body armor entering the practice room. Even though they only trained for just two hours the group overwhelmed the attacker.


These types of workshops are always FREE and open to the public. We will keep you posted on upcoming workshops. In the meantime you can read more about us at www.MiamiShoresKickboxing.com.


Until next time be safe.


Instructor Joe Chao

If You Can't Say Something Nice... Write a "Super Long" Scathing E-Mail. Part 3.

******************* WARNING - DRIVEWAY NONSENSE ********************

The second issue is that there's been some kind of grudging admission by the Commission that an Ordinance they passed LAST YEAR is poorly written and subject to different interpretations, and therefore impossible to enforce. As near as I can tell, instead of relying on the Code Review Committee to draft the Ordinance, they took it upon themselves to 'improve' things, and thereby made it a jumbled mess on 8/4/15 & 9/1/15 when they passed it. So they thought it was best to pay our Attorney some extra money to fix it - again without hearing from any Village Committee. Item 11A is their attempt to try to unjumble their mess, and I seriously doubt they can do that, given their past history.  (As Steve said at the outset, he's been busy and away from all this.  He has forgotten what the Boards and Commission are for.  He us unaware that the Code Review Committee most certainly drafted an Ordinance, and that the "improvements" the Commission made are its job to make.  This happens in every case of every Ordinance suggested by any Board, and it certainly would have happened when Steve was a Commissioner.  But it's been a long time, and he just doesn't remember.  What Steve also doesn't remember, or perhaps simply doesn't know, is that it is most common for the Village to rely on its Attorney for things like drafting Ordinances.)

I don't have a particular dog in the race, although for some inexplicable reason, because we have a previously paved swale for parking, we're going to have to abide by the following, and this is a quote from the Ordinance: "Parking on any swale shall be considered a non-conforming parking surface requiring a release agreement to be executed by the adjacent property owner."  (It's not easy being Steve Bernard.  You're so persistently angry and spiteful that you can't relax and think straight.  Anyone reading what Steve quoted, which, by the way, is every bit as present in the proposed Ordinance as Steve says it is, would recognize that it doesn't make any sense, that it is in no way practical or rational, and that it was language no doubt taken from somewhere else, about something else, and not applicable here.  It is unimaginable to me that anyone would not agree that it must be removed.  But Steve is not looking for what's rational or sensible.  He just wants to rage.  And there he goes.)

Hilarious. If my neighbor doesn't want me to continue parking on the swale I have been parking on for the last 22 years, I guess the Village will make me rip it up, and install something else? No, no... that's just one interpretation for a poorly written clause.

Because even though I'm sure they mean that it's me (and not my neighbor) who will have to execute a release of some kind (what kind of release, I wonder? Liability for traffic? No way I'd sign that. Responsibility for drainage? Yeah, sure, it's been there for a long time, and drainage settles pretty good after a bit. Ah, never mind, why be clear in an Ordinance. Who thinks that anyone is gonna sign a Release for something that came with the house they bought, and has been that way for decades?) with the Village, to what end? And why is this thing written SO damn poorly? What's allowed, what's not. I heard that the old styled concrete strips with grass between them is no longer allowed - why the heck not?

Bottom line - WHO IS PUSHING FOR THIS? Has the Village risen up as one, prepared a petition of hundreds of residents to demand a change to something that's not cause any serious problems for as long as I can remember, that can't be done a lot simpler and for a lot less money for both our Village and our Residents? I guess, given this Commission's attitude to resident's desires, that's the best thing to do - send a petition that we really and truly need this.... so they will promptly ignore it and abandon this latest round of nonsense.  (Who is pushing for this?  Some of your neighbors, and a majority of the Commission you elected.  Those are people who want this Village to be better than it is, and the best it can be.  And please, Steve, don't make this petition like the last one, which was totally faulty, not related to the matter at hand, which contained forgeries and names of people who not only weren't on hand when the petition was presented, but don't even live here.  And don't present it at the 11th hour.  Oh, wait a minute, it's already the 11th hour.  Oh, Steve...)

Here's the link to Agenda item 11A, if you want to see for yourself - http://www.biscayneparkfl.gov/index.asp?SEC=A482E78D-C7CA-4E86-BD0D-AA20BD7CDAEB&DE=8B5C131E-82B7-45D1-9DC8-D41184F93108&Type=B_EV

Sincerely,

Steve Bernard

Resident

Former Commissioner

305-588-6177 

If You Can't Say Something Nice... Write a "Super Long" Scathing E-Mail. Part 1.

The following e-avalanche was written by Steve Bernard.  For whatever were his reasons, he admitted he was once a Commissioner in BP.  The B-mail is typical for Steve, in a few ways.  It is nasty.  It contains various accusations, typically, as here, that the Commission on which he does not sit and of which he did not endorse part of the majority is both incompetent and uninterested in the opinions of BP residents, or anyone else.  The B-mail also includes some classic tactics, such as referring to conversations that occurred in everyone else's absence, and with people who are no longer here.  It is a dazzling display of figures and calculations that are so clear and "bottom line" that it is impossible that anyone else, and everyone else(!), wouldn't naturally have known and adopted them, too.  Unless, of course, as Steve makes clear, the other people are idiots, criminals, or both.  The final essential feature of B-mails, although this is equally true of Steve's verbal offerings, is that they are remarkably well-presented.  He's a great speaker and writer.  Actually, and importantly, he makes a fine raconteur. When you're in the presence of Steve the speaker or Steve the writer, you become so enrapt that you sort of stop paying attention to what Steve is saying.  I always said of Steve that if you didn't know anything about a topic, Steve is the smartest person on the planet.  Because he knows everything about everything, and there's nothing he misses.

Because Steve has generously provided a "super long" B-mail, I am going to present it in three parts.  Passages in red are from me.

Hi Everyone,

It's been a long while since I've been able to get involved in Village matters, but there's a couple of issues that are pretty important I wanted to share with you.... so I'll make this super long.

The first issue is Annexation. Yes, it is still alive, even though no Commissioner wants to hear what you think (Members of two Commissions have of course listened to and heard a great deal of what BP residents think about this issue.  A majority of the last Commission did what it could to quash annexation.  A majority of the present Commission has revived the effort.  What Steve means to suggest to his neighbors is that a majority of the current Commission did not do what he himself prefers, for whatever are the real reasons he prefers it.), no newsletter mentions it, no newspaper article has discussed it, and there is a County Commission Meeting NEXT Tuesday, 7/19/16 to determine what will happen. What? You didn't know? Shocking! I guess the "TRANSPARENCY"  word plastered all over letterheads and police cars in the Village is just a bad joke.

Because you see, if the County Commissioners approve the next step next week, there will be a vote among residents to determine if a mostly commercial area will become part of Biscayne Park. And do you know who votes? Not Biscayne Park. (Admirably clever and tricky.  Pure Steve.  Congressional Republicans do the same thing.  The people, as represented by their chosen President, should have a say about who replaces Scalia.  But Barack Obama is the people's twice-chosen President.  So shouldn't he be the one to make the nomination?  No, because, um, uh, it's in the final year of his term.  Or something.  Steve did not complain when the last commission tried to sabotage the annexation effort, without a vote from the residents of BP.  He only complains now, when the duly elected Commission wants to go forward.  Now he suggests the residents of the Park have not been consulted.)  Only those in the apartment buildings in the area. Not even the Office Building Owners, or the CVS... just those renters. Hey, in the interest of TRANSPARENCY, do you think that Biscayne Park will explain to the renters that the Owners of their Buildings will have their taxes rise from 1.983 mils to 9.7 mils? And that will raise their rents to the point where maybe they have to move out? (Only a few paragraphs in, and Steve is already in high gear.  This is his classic stuff.  He tries to hypnotize his readers into thinking there is a proposal that would more or less quintuple the tax paid by property-owners in the annexation territory.  How much clearer could it be?  Their millage is now let's call it 2 mills, and it's to increase to almost 10 mills.  I don't think Steve would object if I referred to this kind of gross highway robbery as insane.  And it would be.  If it were true.  Look at your property tax bill.  It has three main ad valorem portions.  One is for the Village, one is for the County, and one is for the School Board.  There's a fourth ad valorem amount, but it's small.  It's called "State and Other."  The School Board portion is taxed at 7.6 mills, the County tax is about 7.8 mills, and the VBP tax is 9.7 mills.  If you owned property in the annexation area, you would still be paying the School Board 7.6 mills, you would still be paying the County 7.8 mills, and your "local" tax-- they call it UMSA-- would be let's say 2 mills.  It's that last part that will go up, eventually, to whatever is the BP millage.  The whole tax bill doesn't quintuple.  Only a third of it eventually might.  And not in one year.  Steve also forgot to mention that until recently, there was competition to annex that area.  If we didn't annex it, it would be because CNM would.  What's their millage, 9.2?  So the third part of the ad valorem tax is going up considerably for that area one way or the other.  What was Steve's complaint?  Lack of "TRANSPARENCY?"  Uh, yeah.) I'm betting against it. Because BP hired some Lobbyists for over $50,000 to get 25% of those renters to sign a petition that allowed annexation to proceed. When asked what they told those renters, they wouldn't tell us. The lobbyists said they didn't have a script, and they never once explained how they got them to sign that paper. Transparency is so beautiful, isn't it?

MATH PROBLEM #1

Am I against Annexation? I sure am against THIS Annexation. Because the numbers don't work... not even close. This Commission has approved a plan that has the following expenses, in their entirety:

$134,713  - TWO  Police Officers

$  25,000  - ONE part time Code Enforcement Officer

$159,713 total expenses

That's it, I swear. Two cops and a part time code guy. No legal costs. No administrative costs. No street repair costs. No street lighting, no parks upkeep, no zoning costs, no signage, no lawsuits, no building inspection.... nothing. No additional costs of any kind.  (Oh, Steve swears?  What could be more reassuring?  As even Steve himself mentioned, he used to be a Commissioner in BP.  Ask him how much interest he took in legal costs, street repairs, street lighting, zoning costs, and signage, then.  As soon as he became a Commissioner, he was on the horn often to the Village Attorney.  It seems one of our new Commissioners kept thinking of wild goose chases and other time-consuming tasks for our Attorney.  Steve never advocated for one cent to be expended on street repairs.  And we have terrible streets.  People today are clamoring for street lights.  Steve is referencing it now.  Do you want to know how many street lights the Village added in response to Steve's urging?  Or how much urging he provided?  Steve's idea of parks upkeep, from when he was on the Commission, was to keep the park as poorly conditioned as possible, so that whomever he considered to be BP outsiders wouldn't want to use the park.  He was a little hazy as to what he expected BP residents to do with the park he didn't want to spend the money to maintain.  We have a new major entry sign at the 6th Avenue bridge.  Steve had little or nothing to do with it.  As for building inspections, Steve may have been too busy terrorizing Village administration to have understood that building inspections are almost like a revenue center for the Village.  Permit fees pay for the inspector as well as part of the support costs, like part of the salary of the Village employee who is the building clerk.  If you do talk to Steve, also ask him how someone with such expertise and vision managed to miss the fact that the new Public Works building, installed during his tenure, somehow didn't have a septic tank, and Steve, the architect, missed it.  That oversight cost us.)

But the money will come rolling in, our amateur Commissioners claim! (What's an "amateur" Commissioner?  Or more properly, what's a professional Commissioner?  All elected officials in the world are amateurs.  Some are very good at it, and others are less so.  But there is no training to be an elected official.  Steve has promoted a few candidacies of BP Commissioners.  He promoted his own.  He's not a professional Commissioner.  He initially moved to encourage the candidacy of Roxy Ross, until he realized he wouldn't be able to control her, and she did the horribly traitorous deed of not voting for him to be Mayor.  She's a paralegal, but she's not a professional Commissioner.  He promoted the candidacy of Bryan Cooper.  I was never clear exactly what Bryan does, but it has something to do with a college library.  Bryan had briefly been on the Parks and Parkways Board, but he has no other meaningful qualifications.  Steve promoted the candidacy of Barbara Watts.  Barbara, like Bryan, has a PhD.  Hers is in art history.  Professional Commissioner?  I don't think so.  Steve promoted the candidacy of Noah Jacobs.  Noah had worked briefly on the political campaign of some candidate out in Arizona or someplace.  Then, he became a teacher of special needs children.  At the time Noah ran for Commission, he might or might not have lived in the Village for a year.  He had never served on any Board or other work group.  His claim to fame at the time was that he was angry at the Village about something.  That, apparently, was qualification enough for Steve.  Steve promoted the candidacy of Manny Espinosa.  Manny is a corporate accountant, and he had to declare his candidacy at the last moment, because he had to wait until the day he had been here one year.  He had no Village or other relevant experience, but he, too, was angry at the Village about something.  If we are to assume that Steve's swipe about the current "amateurs" is to distinguish them from the Commissioners or candidates he likes, I, for one, am not impressed.  Steve also promoted the candidacy of David Coviello.  David is an attorney, with a specialty in zoning, and he had served on another municipal governing Board in Connecticut.  That's pretty qualified.  But David later voted for outsourcing sanitation and was one of the Commissioners in support of the new construction and renovation about which Steve will complain, so I suspect Steve has demoted David to "amateur.")  Estimated revenue is $429,285. Subtract the ONLY expenses budgeted, and the village rakes in $269,572! Hooray!

Seriously, like little kids who don't want to hear the truth, that's what this Commission is counting on. Check out page 213 of the 2/4/14 agenda -http://www.biscayneparkfl.gov/vertical/sites/%7BD1E17BCD-1E01-4F7D-84CD-7CACF5F8DDEE%7D/uploads/Agenda_COMPLETE_Regular_Commission_Meeting_02_04_2014.pdf

(don't worry, the driveway nonsense is coming up soon)

SO LET'S TALK ABOUT CRIME, SHALL WE? (MATH PROBLEM #2)

Because if you want to have less police in our village, then this is the plan for you! Because the math is very simple - there are 168 hours in 1 week, and 2 cops, working ALONE, can patrol 80 of them. You know what happens there for the other 88 hours? Nothing, unless our regular police officers leave Biscayne Park to do so. No patrolling, no accident reports, no robberies, no domestic disturbance calls... no NOTHING unless they leave our village to go over to that area - which is not accessible through BP - you have to speed through North Miami or Unincorporated Dade to get to the area. What could go wrong?

I mean, if we have too many police now, let's let some go. We have almost no crime, right, so what's the difference if we fire them or send them elsewhere? What utter nonsense! And those 80 hours are if they work alone, if they take no vacations, no court time, no sick time. Who's idea was this?  (Whose, indeed.  The initial proposals to which Steve refers came tentatively from two people who are no longer here.  One of them was Ray Atesiano, our prior police Chief, and the other was Heidi Siegel, our recently-resigned Manager.  She's the Manager about whom Steve will later complain, indirectly, for faulty estimates.  What Steve does is reduce complicated and undetermined matters to something about which he can conveniently complain, and for which he can criticize and accuse someone.  That's what he does.  As we get closer to this, we will "sharpen our pencils" and figure out what the need is, and how best to meet it.  As is true of every area, the local municipality police are not always adequate to confront every situation, and other officers are sometimes called in.  Right now, it's mostly County police who patrol that area.  And they are less attentive than we are.  Steve will also later complain about revenues that might not automatically and immediately revert to the Village, if we succeed in annexing.  Although Steve doesn't mention he is merely guessing and assuming, improperly.  We will certainly have help, from the County and from neighboring municipalities, if we need it, as we have always had their help, and they have always had ours.)

MATH PROBLEM #3

To have two full time officers over there, not even including sick/court/vacation time (and would 2 be enough if something big happened), it takes 168 hours x 2 divided by 40 hours each = 8.4 officers. So if 2 officers requires $134K (with no raises, ever), then 8 officers requires $536K. But wait - total increase in revenue is $429K. So, if we were to service the area with two full time officers at all times, it will cost more than we take in. As I said, what could go wrong? It's not like those roads will ever need repair, drainage will always be perfect, and nothing will ever break.... Who is taking responsibility for this? (Ah, Steve and his police math.  He presents a compensation figure.  Let's assume it's correct.  "No raises, ever."  That would be like the PW workers whose jobs Steve tried so hard to protect, except we paid them below the County's poverty level, too.  No problem for Steve, though.  But back to the police, Steve calculates that we would need to hire 8.4 officers to provide two extra ones per shift for "over there."  If we have two officers per shift here, why do we need two per shift there?  It's a much smaller area, and there is almost no crime.  Oh, well let's not ask questions like that.  And what about reserve officers, whom we don't pay.  Oh, Steve omitted them.  And Steve has, or had, another police math scheme.  Maybe he'd like us to try it "over there."  His idea was that police don't really cost anything, because they earn in tickets what they cost in salary and benefits. He once told us we should hire another officer, because they're free.  And Steve has part of a point, sort of.  We do get money from the County, representing fines levied by the police.  Supposedly, we receive 40% of the receipts from ticket issuance.  The check we received for April, 2015, was for $372.  I am told the check has occasionally been as high as $1000.  Usually, it's less.  That accounts for all tickets written by all officers, and fines either paid normally or as a result of a failed challenge.  This is as good as it gets, for the whole department.  It doesn't appear rational, if reason is part of Steve's argument, to imagine that police pay for themselves.  As for Steve's dismay at the low return of the annexation area, the current tax that the Village would receive, assuming a millage of 9.7, and not taking into account non ad valorem revenue, is about $663K.  But who's counting?)

Seriously, no one is sending out emails the day before a commission meeting, crowing about how great this is gonna be, how safe we're gonna be, how safe THEY are going to be over there, how the money is just gonna be rolling in.... they just hope no one knows, no one understands.

At one county meeting, the Manager stated that we'd have a police substation over there. When I asked her about it, she said the sandwich shop might serve as the substation, but no one ever asked them if they'd allow us. Probably because they're gonna be paying almost 5 times the taxes they currently pay now. And for what? For the BP name? For 80 hours worth of BP policing a week? Yeah, I'm sure they'll love to accommodate us.

Me, I don't want even ONE of the police that protect this Village to go to some part of town that has nothing to do with us... because that's one officer that won't be here for us. Stuck there while a train is blocking their return if we need them, stuck dealing with interests that are not our own, stuck away from me and my family. That is simply unacceptable, and it is impossible to do that section right and keep us safe, the math proves it.  (You can see it happening.  Steve is so impassioned, so outspoken, so desperate, that you stop paying attention to what he's actually saying.  He doesn't want "one of the police [who] protect this Village to go..."  But what if it's not one of them?  What if it's one we hired extra.  Or one of our reserves?  Or a County or CNM officer?)

If You Can't Say Something Nice... Write a "Super Long" Scathing E-Mail. Part 2.

A HISTORY OF FINANCIAL MISMANAGEMENT

By the way, when I brought up these expense vs revenue questions to the previous manager, she said that it's ok, there's lots of revenue not taken into account that will more than cover any expenses not listed. But you know what? NOPE. Check out page 278 where it says that all utility fees and taxes, and all FPL Franchise fees, and even cigarette taxes paid by our potential new neighbors (but not really, separated by railroad tracks and not reachable unless you leave BP) will go directly to the County, not BP. Extra revenue? Maybe if property values go up and they pay more taxes.... for us.  (So are these our "new neighbors," or are they not?  Steve is absolutely right: we're not moving the land and the buildings; they're staying where they are, across the tracks.  It makes you wonder a bit what, exactly, is the concern.  That annexation is a fiscal drain?  Municipalities annex, and it's not uncommonly because the annexed area provides diversification, like of revenue.  Municipalities don't annex, because they want to go bankrupt.  It's for the opposite reason.  One of Steve's proteges, Bryan Cooper, actively said he wanted us to go bankrupt, so Miami Shores, as he envisioned it, would pick us up.  Steve wasn't heard complaining about that.  So now, Steve sees the area in question providing revenue, but not for us.  I suppose it's good to know he recognizes the revenue potential of the area.  He directs his readers to a link that doesn't say what he says it says.  But let's imagine that it did.  What we have every reason to assume is that 1) the County would be flexible and consider such an arrangement to be negotiable, and 2) that retentions like these are in the context of things like franchise agreements, that have end dates to them.  In the present case, the end dates of some of these agreements is very soon {and annexation not imminent}, so that the entity renegotiating a possible new agreement would be BP, not the County.  So clearly, there is abundant flexibility here, but Steve either doesn't know that or chooses not to mention it.)

Sounds pretty naive, right? Maybe even as poorly thought out as the recent funding debacle at Village Hall. If you missed it (and it was easy to miss it - no newspaper articles about it, nothing sent out by your Commission, because it's just so shameful) the Village asked the State for a million dollars to renovate the Log Cabin and build a new Administration Building. And they got it! Whoo hoo! A million bucks! Everyone crowed about it, everyone slapped themselves on the back, emails from the mayor, a press release... but. No one included a cost estimate to see how much the project would be before they asked for the money.

No one asked how much the job would cost when they approved a yearly budget, or hired an architect, or when they signed a contract with the GC (they committed to the new building before they knew how much the log cabin would be). Turns out the entire job was about $1,800,000! Where'd they get the money to make it up? I'm not exactly sure. I know they took out a $350,000 loan with little fanfare (our first building loan ever! But don't tell anyone... shhh....), but I don't know where the rest came from - sold a garbage truck here, maybe went into the reserves there... Maybe you can ask them when you come to the Commission meeting Tuesday 7/12/16 and ask why they think annexation is a good idea. Yes, the buildings are beautiful, and yes, the funding was disgraceful... and if the amateurs who failed to oversee that fiasco are in charge of annexation, we are in trouble. Instead of stepping down in shame, they are now pushing for one more financial boondoggle. (He's really working himself into a state here.  I wonder why.  I'm glad Steve thinks the new work is beautiful.  It wasn't done under the preceding Commission, or any others of the past Commissions, including the ones on which he sat.  Is that what upsets him?  Decades of BP Commissions let that building deteriorate more and more.  Presumably, they didn't want to be in the position we're now in: spend some money to improve the neighborhood.  And if you don't repair, you just enable more deterioration.  Maybe they didn't want Steve Bernard, so some other version of him, at their throats.  The old log cabin was in disgraceful condition.  Sure, it was the water leaking when it rained, and the rats running wild.  And the bathrooms you couldn't actually use.  And beyond that, it was just very, very cramped.  One Village Clerk some years ago threw away many documents, because there was no place to store them.  And Steve is satisfied with the new results.  Good.  Me, too.  Steve's main castigation is that we didn't take into account the possible cost of the job and the possibility of cost over-runs.  Of course we did.  Gary Kuhl, one of our neighbors who has had a long and active career in the construction management trade, criticized the architect for not padding the overage assumption more than he did.  Gary was right: these jobs often go over expected budget, and this one went over more than the architect bargained for.  But Steve somehow thinks no one even thought about overages.  Does he really believe this, or does he just say it for polemic effect?)

Because no matter how bad our financial situation is (or maybe isn't - who can believe a word this commission says? We're so broke we have to outsource sanitation, but we're so rich we can spend an unbudgeted $800,000 on a building project)  (We have no money; we can't afford to keep this place afloat.  We have plenty of money, and we're happy to spend it; we want to run our own sanitation service, no matter how much it costs the Village and the homeowners.  "She's my sister.  She's my daughter.  She's my sister and my daughter."), going into a lifetime annexation with no clue how we can pay to police it or service it, but knowing we'll need more than just 2 cops going into it is a mistake of the highest magnitude (Great phrase.). Enough to truly bankrupt our Village, as opposed to scare tactics this commission used to push through annexation.

And if, as we have been told, the new area does not have to pay the 9.7 mils immediately, but it can be raised in steps, we'll be broke before we ever get the full amount promised by our math-disabled commissioners, if we ever get that much, which is highly doubtful.

As far as I'm concerned, I am 100% sure that if 50 people... 100 people... 500 people showed up tomorrow night and told our BP Commission we do not want this, that the math doesn't work... they will disregard us as they have so many times in the past. But this time, the one making the final decision is the County Commission, and they rarely have that many people show up to tell them how wrong their own Village Commission is.  (As if no one knew or understood anything, until Steve Bernard sets them right.)

And I also bet that if you look at the numbers (and you're not one of the dozen people - if that much -  who first supported this and will now be defensive) you'll agree that this is a financial mistake, and you'll come out in force... or at least sign a letter telling the County you're against it. Our own commissioners have proven they don't give a damn what we think, but it's a different story with the County.

Send me an email if you think this is a mistake, and let's figure out how to stop it by the 7/19 county meeting. And please tell your friends and neighbors about this, as I know there are many new residents who aren't on my list.

Here's the link to that Agenda item 11 B if you want to see for yourself - http://www.biscayneparkfl.gov/index.asp?SEC=A482E78D-C7CA-4E86-BD0D-AA20BD7CDAEB&DE=8B5C131E-82B7-45D1-9DC8-D41184F93108&Type=B_EV

I've Been Taken To Task. Again.

(BP Resident)  I’m offended by your blog. I’ve lived here for 20 years and never had a problem with code enforcement until recently. I have been a target of 4 summons to comply! This is getting out of hand. Everyone has their own concept of what “charm” is. Stop imposing your views on the rest of us.

Please remove me from your mailing list. 

__________________

(Me)   Hi,________________,

I'm sorry you're offended by the blog.  You wrote to me to tell me about it, but you should have felt free to have left your impressions as a comment with the post.  Maybe you're not the only one who feels that way.

It seems to me you might be talking about two different things when you express your frustration and difference of opinion.  I don't know what the "summonses" were for, so I can't comment on them.  As for "charm," the summonses were not about that, I'm sure.  I was mostly describing where many of us see the Village now (and in the past), and where some of us would like to see it go in the future.  Part of that has gotten codified into the Codes, or it's very clearly in that direction, so it will in the future be part of what someone could get cited for.  Where that could affect you in particular is that I think you don't have parking on your property.  You use the swale.  The new Code as proffered would require you to create an approved parking surface on your actual property (the swale is not your property).

Everyone who lives in an incorporated area is imposed upon by his or her "neighbors."  Every municipality, and County, and State, has rules, and those rules impact everyone.  It's too much to ask that the views of some people, who represent some kind of majority, not be imposed on everyone else.  If you're saying that if you were on the BP Commission, you would either not share the vision of those who currently are, or you would choose not to impose your vision on your neighbors, and if that's important to you, then you should be on the Commission.  If there are enough people who view the neighborhood, and the concept of not imposing visions on neighbors, as you do, you will get elected.

I have removed your name, as you requested.

Fred

PS: Please do consider placing your views and opinions as a comment below the relevant blog post.  Others would want to know what you think, and as I said, they might agree with you and write in to say so.

(Same BP Resident)   I don’t know who’s in charge of this new code but it’s a huge financial imposition to many of the residents here. If we are not allowed to park on the swale, where do you suggest we park 2 cars? This is outrageous. Biscayne Park was never like this. 

(Me)  The new Code requires that an "approved parking surface" be created on the actual property (not the swale).  We have been informed of one necessary exception, which is a duplex with two septic tanks, each in half of the front yard.  So there is no place to create an approved parking surface on the actual property.  In that case, we will have to make an exception, and parking will have to be permitted primarily (only) in the swale.

Yes, we know it's a financial burden.  As I said, I don't know for what you were cited four times.  If it was something like a roof that needs cleaning, or paint that needs redoing, those cost money, too.  But those requirements are in the Codes we already have.

This is what Codes, and neighborhoods, are about.  We are more demanding and restrictive than some communities, and less than others.  People who don't want to be imposed upon have to live in areas where there are no Codes.  Probably this means out in the country, in some unincorporated place.

I don't know whether Biscayne Park was ever like this.  I know that there was a time that homeowners and property owners generally kept their properties in good condition, with proper paint and presentable landscaping.  Maybe we've slid down since then.  We would like to work our way back up.  Not all of us, to be sure.  I don't know what else to tell you.

We have Commission elections this year.  Run for Commission.  Or vote for someone who feels the same way you do.

Fred

If You Want to Save Trees...

A few years ago, I started a campaign to get the Biscayne Times to stop their automatic delivery here.  I asked the then Commission to communicate to the BT that they were welcome to provide the publication, but that they should do so by mailing it to people who want it, or leave a stack of them at a convenient place, so people who want it can easily get it, and those of us who don't won't be bothered.

My campaign failed completely.  The BT shrieked "First Amendment" rights, and the Commission to which I tried to appeal was distinctly hostile to me.

In the meantime, the BT  has, for whatever are its reasons, stopped its concerted effort to trash BP.  They now never mention us at all.  I disagree with Oscar Wilde, when he said it's better to be talked about than not to be talked about.  I'm more in line with the proverbial "mother," who proverbially told us all that "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all."   Also, coincidentally, I bumped into the founder and publisher of the BT at an event somewhere, we had a very nice conversation, and he later told me something to the effect of that I was not a monster at all, as he imagined, and that it had been a pleasure meeting me.  ("Oh," he said with considerable surprise, "you're Fred Jonas?")

In any event, during my campaign a few years ago, I encountered many people who had feelings about receiving the BT.  Some of those people had no more use for the paper than I did, and some liked receiving it.  So a very fair difference of opinion.  (I offered, by the way, personally to deliver the BT to those few people who really wanted it, if they would consent that everyone else, who didn't want it, should not have to be burdened with it.)

One of the people who disagreed with my position about the BT has since from time to time challenged me to do something about the free abbreviated version of the Miami Herald.  The Herald calls this handout "Neighborhood Values," and it contains mostly ads with a little bit of teaser news spots on the cover.  I don't encounter this person often, but she seems to accost me about this every time I see her.  She did not ask me to use her name, although perhaps she wouldn't mind, so I'm being cryptic.

The last time I saw her, while I was out walking, and she was on her bike, she pounced again, this time telling me that it's possible to cancel receipt of the "Neighborhood Values" throw-away, and that I should let people know about this opportunity.  She told me we should be saving trees.

So I'm letting you know.  The "Neighborhood Values" is on newsprint, with flyers inserted, and it's inside a clear plastic bag.  It's thrown onto your lawn probably once a week.  You didn't ask for it, and it doesn't cost you anything.  If you're like me, and the woman who is so angry about it, or at me, you stoop to pick it up, so you can bring it inside to throw it out, unexamined.

If that's your deal, and you'd be just as happy, (or happier!), not to have to bother, you can stop receiving the publication.  You call 305-376-3130 and leave a message (they'll call you back, eventually, to confirm that this is what you want, to confirm your address, and to tell you they're sorry you don't want the "Neighborhood Values" any more), or you can avoid actual people (yuck) by sending an e-mail to heraldvalues@miamiherald.com.

Biscayne Park is a Very Charming Neighborhood. Or it Should Be. Or it Could Be. Or it Will Be? Part 3.

One of the things many of us, even those who resist change(/improvement?/upgrading?), have argued is that a critical way to protect the sense of charm, and what some see as resulting property values, is to demand adherence to the Codes.  Those Codes mandate construction standards, design style (quality and consistency, not homogeneity), freshness of paint, cleanliness of roofs, and state of landscaping (intention and order, not extravagance).  In fact, it's not hard to conclude that there seems to be "universal" agreement that absent any other attempt to legislate neighborhood improvement, BP property-owners should be made to honor our Codes.

That's not an unfair assertion, and if anything, it's nice that so many of us, regardless of our other approaches, agree about it.  At least we can fundamentally assert that many of us want the neighborhood improved.  Some of the more tentative of us think adherence to the Codes will provide improvement enough.  Others of the more ambitious of us want adherence to the current Codes, as well as other Codes that will mandate even more class and improved "character" for the Village.

Our most recent foray in that direction is a series of proposals about front yards.  Our attention was directed to driveways and swales.  I think all of us on the Commission, and certainly the members of the Code Review Committee, agree that parking on grass, or the dirt that might once have been grass, is not what we want.  I'm not sure that absent other consequences, like cost, we wouldn't also agree that it would be preferable if BP home occupants did not preferentially or primarily park on the swale.

In fact, as I listen to others, it seems to me the biggest objection to new mandates about driveways and swale management is due to cost.  It costs more to have a driveway than not to have one, and it costs more to install nicer surfaces, like turfblock or gravel or brick, than it does to lay concrete or asphalt.  And all other things being equal, we wouldn't choose to ask people to pay more instead of paying less.  But are other things equal enough?  And what does the range of possibilities do to the concept of community charm?

I advocate "For the Best We Can Be."  I'm the first one on board the "improved parking surfaces" train.  And whatever we do, for whatever reasons we do it, I want the neighborhood to look and function the best it can.  In my opinion, a neighborhood that looks good, that has streets in proper repair, and that has medians, if it has any of them, that are well-developed and smart-looking, has more charm than one that is tired-looking and not well-kept.  Neighborhoods that have problematic pooling of water after heavy rains are not, in my opinion, charming.

It seems to me untenable, in a self-respecting community, that people should be allowed to park on the grass or on front yards that are just dirt.  I haven't heard anyone disagree with that.  The swales, and even front yards, serve purposes, other than just looking nice.  If they do look nice.  In our neighborhood especially, and in keeping with the express purposes of swales, these are emergency public access ways.  Swales are part of the "public right-of-way."  They are owned by the public.  They are not owned by the property-owner, although it is he or she who is charged with keeping them.  Sidewalks are on swales.  In BP, where we don't have sidewalks, the swales still have to permit pedestrian passage.  If something is blocking the pavement of a street, it is the swales that are the emergency detour around the obstacle.  Swales also have important ecological significance, since they are to absorb water.

If swales are developed with trees or other imposing plantings, they cannot be used for emergency traffic passage, or maybe even for pedestrians.  If they are covered with impervious material, they cannot permit drainage.  Water collected on them during heavy rain will sit there, or spill onto the street, instead of the intention, which is that water in the street will drain through the swales.

Obstructed passage, or pooled water, is not charming.  Modestly and neatly finished swales, and streets that are easy to pass in the rain, is charming.  It might be trouble and expense to improve front yards, including swales, but it should be part of our charm.

When BP residents want to propose an insult, they suggest we wouldn't like to look like Hialeah.  Hialeah is where you find large expanses of concrete, and whole front yards that are paved and used for parking.

We can strive for better.  We can strive for charm, without stuffiness.  We will always be low key, but we don't have to be untidy, or unkempt.

We have our innate charm.  We can increase it, through adherence to Codes that are intended to promote a level of style and decorum.  The Codes shouldn't over-regulate aesthetics, since the Park is not a uniform development.  But they should require us to be "The Best We Can Be."   And if we can think of other improvements, and include them in the Codes, we should.