I Changed My Mind, Because I Haven't Changed My Mind.

My interest in the Village, which is my home, is that it be "the Best [it] Can Be."  I have always strived for that.  I have done what I could to contribute to that interest before it ever occurred to me to try to be a Commissioner.  I moved here in the middle of 2005, and I have been on one Board or another, continuously, since Kelly Mallette first appointed me.  My motto when I ran for Commission was "For the Best We Can Be," and I have a sign that says so in front of me at all Commission meetings.  I participate in everything, and I contribute to everything.

"For the Best We Can Be" is what I believe in, it's what I pursue, and I have not changed my mind about it.  Whether it was solid waste management here, the Codes, annexation, or our new construction and renovation, my guiding principle was whatever I thought was best for the Village, our Village, our home.  I won't claim always to have been right, and I certainly didn't always win, but I will claim always to have had the best interests of the Village centrally and fundamentally at heart.

I've been on the Commission for over 2 1/2 years.  It's a difficult task and a big responsibility.  There are impossible balancing challenges, like balancing what some Village residents want against what other Village residents want, or what some want against what I conclude is best for the Village overall.  There are also people who want nothing, so they can always complain and criticize, no matter what is done or not done, or people who give themselves the job of complaining, without accepting real responsibility.   Their version of responsibility is telling Commissioners what to do, but if what they want done is wrong, it is not they who are held accountable.

In addition, I have drawbacks when it comes to elected office.  I'm not very tolerant of what I consider unreasonableness.  Or obstruction.  Or people whose main interest is themselves.  I tend not to be very diplomatic.

So I decided that after one short term as a Commissioner, I had had enough.  And frankly, I suspected a number of my neighbors, based on their outwardly expressed reactions to me, had had enough of me, too.

I wouldn't call my time in office a failure.  In a number of ways, I would even say it was a great success.   The first huge trouble to which I contributed was the decision to outsource sanitation.  I had previously said I was opposed, but once I had a better chance to learn more about our "in house" management of this function, and what the outsource advantages would be, I changed my mind.  The worst anyone could ultimately say-- worse, for example, than saying the contractor we chose was worse than some other contractor-- is that we might come to feel that as problematic as running our own program is, it's better than outsourcing.  And if someone ever really did come to feel that way, it would be a confident conclusion, because we actually tried outsourcing.

The other big trouble to which I contributed was the culmination of some years of trying to get funding support to renovate our log cabin, and construct a proper Village Hall for our actual administrative functioning.  I claim no credit at all for the hard work that was done to get all that to happen.  It was all Roxy Ross, David Coviello, Ana Garcia, and Heidi Siegel.  And the fact that Rick Scott was suddenly willing to release a lot of State money, which he figured he could use to buy himself a few votes down in Biscayne Park.  But I agreed with every step along the way.  Well, I didn't exactly fully agree.  I wanted to save money on various angles of the project.  But I got outvoted by my Commission colleagues, and I'm really not complaining much.  The results are spectacular, and they will gracefully and wonderfully serve and represent the Village for very many decades to come.

And this is important to me, since I'm a fierce advocate for the life and well-being of the Village.  That goal, like "For the Best We Can Be," doesn't change.  Whether it's good Codes, good fixtures, or good neighbors, if it's good for the Village, I want it.  If I think public art is good for communities, and especially for the Village, I'm behind it.  MLK Days of Service?  Without question.  And if the Village's fiscal foundation is weak, I want it strengthened.  If we need more money, so we can serve ourselves properly, then I think we should raise our taxes.  If we can't or won't do that, then I think we should broaden our revenue base, and do what almost every other municipality in the country does: have a commercial component.  My time on the Commission included all of those kinds of efforts.  I/we didn't always win, but I'm proud of the effort.  It came from the right place.

I decided not to try to spend more time on the Commission.  It can be torturous, and I might not have the right temperament.  So I figured I'd leave it to someone else.  I said so repeatedly.  And publicly.

On August 15, anyone interested could declare candidacy.  One person did.  By August 25, two people had declared.  (There are three seats coming available.)  It wasn't until the end of the day on August 26 that a third person declared.  And the last day to declare is today, August 30.  Today, two more Village residents declared their candidacies.  Unless there's something someone hasn't told me, it appears none of the three incumbents is running for re-election.  One of them told us publicly five years ago, at the start of her term, that she never really wanted to run anyway, and the only reason she did run was that her then (maybe still) mentor ordered her to run, if she couldn't find someone to run in her place.  At least one of the new candidates (maybe two of them) appear to be her stand-ins.  Another new candidate this year ran three years ago, but she had to withdraw, because of serious illness in her family.  Now, she's back.  It's the first time for the other two, one of whom might or might not have lived here for a year, which is the requirement.

In the most superficial way, this solves our problem.  At least numerically.  We have three open seats, and five candidates.  That leaves us with a full Commission.  But for me, there is still a problem.  In view of the fact that my vision for the Village hasn't changed, I do concern myself with whether the prospective new Commissioners best represent the satisfaction of that vision.  And I have to say, it's not completely clear to me that all of them, or at least three of them, do.

So since I haven't changed my mind about the Village, and "The Best It Can Be," then I have to change my mind about not running.  See you at the polls.

Yes On 4, No On 1.

In recent weeks, there has been a campaign to encourage voters to vote Yes on Amendment 4 on the August 30th ballot.  Some of the advocates of the "yeson4" campaign also urge voters to vote No on Amendment 1 on the November 8th ballot.  Both questions have to do with solar power.  Setting aside that there's something weird about making either of these an Amendment to the State Constitution...

The August 30th question is straightforward.  It asks voters whether they think solar panels installed on private homes should be exempted from homeowners' paying a valuation or property tax on those panels.  The idea is that extra taxes on home solar panels would inhibit homeowners from installing them, but since moving to renewable sources of energy (like solar) is considered a good thing, then we should avoid impediments to it.  It's hard to imagine any homeowner voting No on this question.  Why would they?  If they want solar panels, the exemption will help them.  If they don't want them, the exemption won't hurt them.

The other question, Amendment 1 on the November general election ballot, is trickier.  It has a few components. Here it is:

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Electricity consumers have the right to own or lease solar equipment installed on their property to generate electricity for their own use.

(b) RETENTION OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ABILITIES. State and local governments shall retain their abilities to protect consumer rights and public health, safety and welfare, and to ensure that consumers who do not choose to install solar are not required to subsidize the costs of backup power and electric grid access to those who do.

(c) DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this section, the following words and terms shall have the following meanings:
(1) "consumer" means any end user of electricity regardless of the source of that electricity.
(2) "solar equipment," "solar electrical generating equipment" and "solar" are used interchangeably and mean photovoltaic panels and any other device or system that converts sunlight into electricity.
(3) "backup power" means electricity from an electric utility, made available to solar electricity consumers for their use when their solar electricity generation is insufficient or unavailable, such as at night, during periods of low solar electricity generation or when their solar equipment otherwise is not functioning.
(4) "lease," when used in the context of a consumer paying the owner of solar electrical generating equipment for the right to use such equipment, means an agreement under which the consumer pays the equipment owner/lessor a stream of periodic payments for the use of such equipment, which payments do not vary in amount based on the amount of electricity produced by the equipment and used by the consumer/lessee.
(5) "electric grid" means the interconnected electrical network, consisting of power plants and other generating facilities, transformers, transmission lines, distribution lines and related facilities, that makes electricity available to consumers throughout Florida.
(6) "electric utility" means any municipal electric utility, investor-owned electric utility, or rural electric cooperative which owns, maintains, or operates an electric generation, transmission, or distribution system within the state.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE. This section shall be effective immediately upon voter approval of this amendment.

So first, the Amendment offers Florida residents the right to have solar panels on their homes.  But at some level, this doesn't make sense, since Florida residents already have the right to have solar panels on their homes, and there is no public safety or other reason to abridge that right.  So it would be fair to wonder what is the implication of confirming for Florida homeowners a right they already have.  And there is an implication.  In fact, there are three of them.  First, the casual and superficial reader will read that the State, by an Amendment to its Constitution, is guaranteeing Florida residents a right to have solar panels on their homes.  A guarantee like that seems like a wonderful thing, and some voters might automatically seize it.  You're guaranteeing me I can own solar panels?  Done!  "Yes" on Amendment 1.  Second, and related, is that such an offer, and a guarantee, can be such a relief, that no one would bother to read the rest of the Amendment/legalese.  It's a sucker punch.  It's the carrot.  It's like offering someone rohypnol, telling them it'll make them feel great.  Which it might well.  (But aside from that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?)  And it's a version of the "are you still beating your wife" question.  Because finally, if anyone gave it a bit more thought, they might suspect that voting "No" could mean, no, I don't want the State to guarantee me that I can have solar panels on my house.  But who wouldn't want that guarantee?  And if I don't seize the guarantee, does it mean the State could or will prevent me from having solar panels on my house?  So it seems best to vote yes.  (Who, then, are these "No on 1" people, and what are they, {or the rest of us?}, missing?)

The Amendment then goes on to reassure Florida residents who do not have solar panels that the presence of solar panels on their neighbors' homes will not adversely impact the cost of electricity to them.  People who don't have solar panels will not "subsidize" the cost of electricity of people who do have panels.  Of course, voters might reasonably wonder how the presence of solar panels on one home could affect the cost of electricity delivered to someone else's home.  FPL, or any other electric company, creates electric power.  It delivers it to everyone's home.  You use as little or as much as you like, and you pay for what you use.  If you use less, because you're efficient, or because you have solar panels on your home, what's that got to do with me?

Well, Amendment 1 in November contemplates that question, and it has what seems to be a very twisted way of reasoning it out.  It begins, fairly enough, by noting that electric companies have to produce electricity all the time.  If everyone had solar panels, and those panels worked so well that no one had to buy power from the electric company when the panels were absorbing sunlight and converting it to electric power, the electric companies would still have to have the capacity to produce electric power.  At night and on less than sunny days, they would have to provide all the power (assuming Elon Musk didn't also sell everyone batteries to store the power they didn't use during the sunny days) for all those homes.  So the electric companies argue that since they have to maintain capacity, that they might not be fully using, because of the people who don't need to buy power from them at a given moment, because they have solar panels, then those people should pay them a premium to maintain that capacity.  As I said, it's a bit of a flaky argument, but it could in theory have a reasonable logic to it.

It helps many kinds of business to know they have a reliable clientele.  And they will reward people who promise to be a reliable clientele.  If you commit to one business or another, you can get concessions, or a discount.  Or, if you commit to a level of usage, you can get a better per unit rate.  The electric producers in Florida could be invoking that kind of theory.  They could be saying that unreliable customers, like people who generate their own solar power, much of the time, or some of the time, but have to be accommodated when they need to buy from the grid, should pay a higher per unit price.  And that's not a wrong theory.  The only question is whether that's really the theory of the electric production companies.  If it is, then they would offer cheaper power to higher, more consistent users.  They don't.  Or, as with the mobile phone industry, they would allow you a flat rate, and you can use as much power as you like, as long as you commit to a payment level.  They don't do that, either.  So it seems that's not really their theory.

In Nevada, the local electric power producer got the State to agree to what our State, and we, are asked to agree to.  They used the same "reserve capacity" theory, and they slapped a monthly surcharge onto the electric bills of people who had solar panels.  That surcharge was so high that the solar panel industry collapsed in Nevada.  Very few Nevadans are willing to pay that much, just to tell themselves they're doing the right thing by having a renewable source of electricity.  That appears to be the intention of Amendment 1 on the November ballot here.  The electric power production industry wants a captive clientele, and they want us to buy all our power from them.  The funny thing is that although most commercial electricity production in this State now comes from burning stuff (fossil fuels), the commercial producers are not limited to that source of electric power.  They can rely on solar panels, too.  Or wind.  And when the fossil sources of fuel are gone, they will.  They don't mind if we use and pay for electric power sourced sustainably.  They just want us to buy it from them.

There was a time that Americans got around, even in "town," by riding horses.  The automobile industry displaced the horse industry.  That's the way it went, and that's the way it goes.  I recently saw copies of Time magazine and the Miami Herald.  They're shadows of their previous selves.  It's all online now.  Brick and mortal stores are going out of business, replaced by internet shopping.  No one has a home encyclopedia any more.  Everyone has the internet and computer or smart phone.  And it's not that there are no more horses, or print publications, or stores, or books.  There's just a lot less reliance on them.  Would those industries like to blame and punish someone for the fact that progress moved the world in a different direction?  I understand that.  But it's just not how it works.

So I agree.  Yes on 4 in August, and No on 1 in November.

PS: It's not that FPL hasn't been adequately good to Floridians.  They've done what anyone could have wanted them to do, at a fair price, and they've been overseen by the State's Public Service Commission, to control them in ways public utilities must be controlled.  They're a private corporation, out to benefit themselves, too, and I don't fault them for that.  It's business-- their business-- and it's reality.  The "problem" is that there is now a competing reality, and it doesn't favor FPL.  It's the increasing availability and perfection of ways private individuals can actually create their own electric power, and allow them no longer to need a third party producer as they did before.  It threatens the electric company's business.  What is unique here and now is that the same people who might appear to want to thumb their noses at the electric company, by creating their own electricity, also need the electric company, when they can't create electricity on their own.  If the electric company complains they're being used by the public, they're not wrong.  A book about personality disorder is called I Hate You Don't Leave Me, and a book about adolescents is called Get Out of My Life, But First, Could You Drive Me and Cheryl to the Mall?  It's like that.  And I wouldn't even argue that the theory of charging a premium to less reliable customers is wrong.  The theory of charging extra to less committed customers, who maintain the need for reserve capacity for which they will often not pay, is a fair theory.  But charging them an exorbitant and essentially punitive and inhibiting premium is not a fair exercise of the theory.  Having to pay interest to borrow money is fair.  Usury is not.

Every place I go to attend cultural events will charge me more per event, if I go to select concerts or shows, instead of subscribing to the whole series or season.  Because that event will occur, whether I'm there or not.  And if I'm the patron who might or might not be there, and might or might not support the company by paying for a ticket, then I will pay more when I do.  The per issue price for a random copy of a magazine or newspaper is far higher than the per issue price paid by subscribers.  Because the magazine or newspaper will be produced, and will be at the newsstand, whether occasional readers buy that issue or not.  There will always be "reserve capacity."  And if the per issue, or per concert, price is too high, people will either be forced to subscribe, or they'll shrug their shoulders and not buy.  The difference with public utilities is that the public must have the availability.  It's not discretionary, as attending a concert, or buying a magazine, is discretionary.  The utility is in the unenviable position of having to tolerate, and maybe even enable, evolution that undermines its business.  I have never been a proponent of making cigarette companies advertise what's wrong with their product.  It's not fair to them to make them work against themselves.  If cigarettes are bad and dangerous, we should outlaw them.  If we don't do that, it's on us.  The utility is different.  We have no beef with what they provide.  We need it, and we want it.  We just want to compete with them, and we don't want them to complain about it.  We say we want them out of our lives, but we want them waiting outside, in an air-conditioned car, with our favorite music playing on the radio, in case we suddenly feel a need to be driven to the mall.  And since they're our mommies and daddies, we don't want to have to compensate them for the ride.  If I had, or come to have, solar panels, I would understand a higher per kWh charge for the power I irregularly use.   Just not artificially high, and high enough to undermine my "independence."

Yes on 4 in August, No on 1 in November.

FREE BULLY PREVENTION WORKSHOP

 

With school starting up this month and having to meet new teachers, spending a bunch of money on school supplies, new clothes, new shoes and the occasional “I don’t want to go to school” you will have to deal with a fresh new batch of bullies.

 

Bullying is all too real. Did you know that 25% of public schools report that bullying among kids happens on a daily or weekly basis? And that 1 in 5 high school students report being bullied in the past year?

The good news is that because bullying has made national headlines, schools and communities (and even celebrities) are taking a strong stand against bullying.

 

Bullies thrive on hurting others. A child who isn't easily ruffled has a better chance of staying off a bully's radar. So don't try to fight the battle yourself. Sometimes talking to a bully's parents can be constructive, but it's generally best to do so in a setting where a school official, such as a counselor, can mediate.

 

For real confidence and safety an ongoing self-defense program is a choice of many parents. Although it may be easiest for parents to tell kids to ignore the bully, walk away or tell a teacher, that is not always the safest, easiest thing for a child to do.  Kids don't want to be in fear of school or other kids.  Parents want to make sure their kids are safe.  This is often a have/need choice.  Kids and parents would rather have their kids know self-defense skills and not need to use then than to not have the skills and someday need them.

 

Because of this we are offering our annual “Bully Prevention Workshop” on Saturday, September 3rd, 2016 at 10am at our martial arts school.

This “Bullyproofing” workshop covers the following.

• What is bullying to a child
• What you can expect from bullies
• What can you do to help your child
• How your child can help themselves and each other

This workshop is completely FREE and there are no catches. But if you really want your child to not only be “Bullyproof” but also be “self-confident” a special offer will be made to at the end of the workshop.

If this sounds like something you would be interested please go to our workshops page and click on the "CLICK TO REGISTER" button or simply call us at 305-542-5549 to save your spot.

Until next time be safe.

Instructor Joe Chao

 

Interesting from Delanceyplace.com. Right Up Our Street. Depression Era, Suburban.

Delanceyplace is free and comes to e-mail Monday through Friday.  The posts are often very interesting.  They are excerpts from books, and are on a wide variety of topics.

Today's selection from -- Debtor Nation by Louis Hyman. To help bolster mortgage lending during the Great Depression, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was created, and the FHA in turn created the twenty year mortgage. But no one had made a mortgage loan for anywhere close to as long as twenty years before, and lenders were worried that the houses would not hold their value over twenty years. So the FHA created standards and guidelines to help insure that they did. But in so doing, it clearly showed a bias against urban areas, inaugurating an almost eighty year period in which the trends in housing was toward suburbs -- and away from urban areas. This trend has only recently reversed: "The purpose of the FHA was to create demand for building materials and for labor. To get money moving again in the economy, the FHA guidelines helped buyers and lenders alike differentiate between a good house and a bad house. Too many home buyers had been burned by shoddy construc­tion in the 1920s. Enacting national standards allowed investors to loan money at a distance, and allowed mortgages to be resold. Housing qual­ity was the foundation upon which the entire FHA system resided. "In determining 'good' housing, however, FHA guidelines went well beyond the proper ratio of nails to wood in addressing what had long been contentious politically and racially. ... The FHAUnderwriting Manual instructed lenders on which properties could be insured. ... Through its many pages of charts, tables, and descriptions, the manual instructed banks on where to lend and on whom to lend money to. While the man­ual promised objectivity, the social assumptions of the FHA planners shaped the planning criteria as much as macroeconomic considerations. ... "These standards were not only for how they were physically constructed, but also where they were located, which few ex­tant homes could meet. ... The ideal house lot possessed 'sunshine, ventilation, scenic outlook, pri­vacy, and safety.' 'Effective landscaping and gardening' also added to its worth. Needless to say, downtown districts, especially in the East, rarely possessed all these qualities and 'depart[ure] from the conditions [caused] ratings [to] become progressively lower.' Homogeneity of surrounding housing stock -- houses that all looked alike -- was believed to indicate stable housing prices. To get the maximum score on the mortgage evalu­ation, the manual mandated that a house be a part of a 'sparsely devel­oped new neighborhood . . . completed over the span of a very few years.' Without this homogeneity, 'an undesirable age mixture of structures will result.' Between the types of lots and the need for simi­lar building age, the suburban subdivision easily received a designation as a 'better mortgage-lending area.' Urban neighborhoods found it nearly impossible to receive such a designation. ... "Multiuse districts with 'commercial, industrial, or manufacturing enterprise,' threatened resi­dential value. A declining population threatened a surplus of sales, which would decrease value. Most alarming was the mixture of classes or races in a neighborhood or the potential therefore. The 'adverse influences' category of the mortgage application, which was 20 percent of its total rating, was mostly concerned with the danger of class and racial mixing. Ideal neighborhood schools ought not to have 'a goodly number of the pupils represent a far lower level of society or an incompatible racial ele­ment.' A good neighborhood also included 'prevention of the infiltra­tion of business and industrial uses, lower-class occupancy, and inharmo­nious racial groups.' ... "Considered from the point of view of a mortgage lender, the FHA be­lieved the city was not a good investment, making suburban lending risk­ free and thus, urban lending, bad business. Very explicitly, the 'central downtown core' was 'considered ineligible.' "  SHARE DELANCEYPLACE SHARE        Debtor Nation: The History of America in Red Ink  Author: Louis Hyman Publisher: Princeton University Press Copyright 2011 by Princeton University Press Pages: 63-66 If you wish to read further: Buy Now All delanceyplace profits are donated to charity and support children's literacy projects. About Us Delanceyplace.com is a brief daily email with an excerpt or quote we view as interesting or noteworthy, offered with commentary to provide context. There is no theme, except that most excerpts will come from a non-fiction work, mainly works of history, are occasionally controversial, and we hope will have a more universal relevance than simply the subject of the book from which they came. to go to our homepage - click here to go to our archives - click here to subscribe - click here

Thoughts On Being an American and a Villager This Political Season. By MacDonald Kennedy.

On Friday, I had the privilege and honor of attending the induction ceremony where 179 people became new US citizens, including my friend Nora from Guatemala. Watching them declare their allegiance to our flag and sing our national anthem for the first time, tears were rolling down my face – not only because I know what Nora personally went through to become an American but also because I respect and celebrate the rights I was granted because I was lucky enough to be born on this side of an arbitrary line that was drawn on a map more than 200 years ago, well before we discussed fences to keep others out. The ceremony is exciting and touching beyond words that I’m able to fully express. If you ever get a chance to attend an induction ceremony for new citizens, please take advantage.

 During the ceremony, our new citizens promise to protect our Constitution and our country itself against those who would attack us, both foreign and domestic. That’s a responsibility of being an American – it’s part of the job. Then, the president (on video) welcomes the new Americans and encourages them to become active in other ways, including voting, which unfortunately is not a job requirement. Those 179 new Americans didn’t need to be reminded of that, as they took turns having their photos taken in front of a replica of the Statue of Liberty then stood in line to get their voter registrations. Now, they each get one vote just like the rest of us, and I could see on their faces how seriously they take that right. Nora, for one, is so excited to vote this November, as is a former Miss Universe from Venezuela who was also in that room and has since spoke openly about becoming an American specifically to vote for her chosen presidential candidate.

 So why am I posting this for my VofBP neighbors and others to read? Because it’s election time – open season for bitching and complaining, this time around more about the “other” party and the “other guy/gal” than the direction in which our country is going and now we can collectively affect that. Yet, only about half of Americans bother voting at all (presidential elections, and only about 1/3 at non-presidential election cycles). Here’s horrifying/embarrassing news: The United States ranks 120 of the 169 countries for which data exists on voter turnout, falling between the Dominican Republic and Benin, according to a January 2012 study from the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. This, from the country that touts itself the posterchild for democracy. Only Australia and Argentina REQUIRE voting or you pay a fine, an idea I fully support.

 In the VofBP, the stats are even worse: only 42% of eligible voters show up, from what I found online at Miami-Dade County. And, the VofBP has only one declared candidate so far for three open commission seats this year, with just nine days remaining for candidates to qualify. (We might have two candidates if we didn’t have a one-year residency requirement.)

 “All politics is local” is a phrase you hear tossed around a lot, and this year we in the VofBP have a lot to consider locally: from the debt incurred by the new Village Hall and Log Cabin, to crime and safety concerns, to driveway ordinances and other topics that directly affect the value of our homes – and hence the tax base that supports Village finances and feeds future improvements and the continued increase of our property values. That cycle perpetuates itself, and it starts with decisions being made by our commissioners now and for the upcoming two-year term.

 So here’s my charge to my neighbors, specifically the folks with whom I share a financial investment in Village property: SHOW UP.

 SHOW UP not only to vote in November, but SHOW UP and be part of the process that affects the quality of our lives here in the VofBP and the value of our homes. SHOW UP at commission meetings where decisions are being made about your money and your property. (This past week, only 11 of 3,000+ Villagers showed up to hear commissioners go over the 2017 budget!) SHOW UP when the commissioners write new driveway ordinances or don’t show up to complain that you have to pay for a new driveway. SHOW UP when they interview candidates for Village Manager or don’t complain that she doesn’t run the Village to your satisfaction. The commission meetings are only once a month – that’s 12 times each year – so most of you have no valid excuse. (Newsflash: apathy and “I forgot” aren’t valid excuses.) SHOW UP at board meetings where other local topics are discussed and decisions made on everything from social events to improvements on public spaces to fines charged for violating Village rules & regs. (I sit on the Parks & Parkways board, and not one Village resident has ever shown up at our meetings during my tenure.) And, consider REALLY showing up by joining one of those volunteer boards or even running for commissioner, admittedly a thankless and virtually non-paying job for which those five neighbors deserve enormous praise for enduring on our behalf.

 SHOW UP. Nora and our other new fellow Americans will very likely show up on November 8, yet half of those of us born with the right to vote won’t show up. And, quite frankly (here’s where I don’t make friends), if you don’t show up, then please SHUT UP. I don’t want to hear you bitch for the next two years while the commissioners and mayor do the hard work on our behalf and you stay at home and hope for the best and play the victim. Yup, harsh words in the land of free speech, but that’s another of the rights I hold dear as an American.

MacDonald (Mac) Kennedy