I Wonder Whether I'm the Bad Cop or the Good Cop. Or the Worse Cop.

I myself couldn't tell.  I voted against the new driveway and swale Ordinance, because it didn't have enough teeth, and it wasn't far-reaching enough.  I said I was voting against it, not because it was asking too much of BP homeowners, but because it was not asking enough.

The Ordinance as we considered it caused too much aggravation for not enough gain.  We would have left a proportion of properties still allowed to park solely on the swale, and exempted from creating a driveway, and we did not outlaw impervious surfaces.  I wanted more.  So in voting down the issue, because it wasn't demanding (mean) enough, I felt like a bad cop.

The result of my vote against the proposed Ordinance was that we would revert to the current Code.  And many or most of our neighbors who spoke in opposition to the new Ordinance pleaded instead for better adherence to the Code we already have.  As part of my embarrassed slithering away from the Ordinance I had heretofore supported, I expressed agreement that we should, as these neighbors offered, apply ourselves to serious insistence on compliance with what we have.  If we're not going all the way, I want us to be honest about doing what we're already supposed to be doing.  So then, I felt like a good cop.

The reason I felt even like a good "cop" was that I know very well that the people who argue for stricter adherence to the Code we have, which we passed in 2015, really don't want adherence to that Code, either.  In truth, I don't think they want anything, except to keep doing what they're doing, and they think the old Code allows them to do it.

Here's the 2015 Code to which many of those who resisted the 2016 update want to limit their responsibility to adhere:

      5.6.8  Parking must be available, accommodating a specified number of cars, on the property, which means "within the lot lines [which exclude the swales] of all properties."
      5.6.8(a)  All parking surfaces shall be of approved materials except as provided elsewhere.
      5.6.8(b)  All parking surfaces must have an [approved] improved approach across the swale
      5.6.8  Construction of a portion of a parking surface in the swale...such as the apron and parking surface approach, shall require the property-owner to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the Village from any and all actions...associated with...proposed work within the Village right-of-way.

Furthermore:

      5.6.1(a)(1) Nonconforming residential properties that do not have an approved approach shall have one (1) year from the date of enactment of this Ordinance (September, 2015) to have the compliant surface permitted and installed.

This codified Ordinance does provide one partial loophole for some Village property-owners:

      5.6.1(a)(2) Existing nonconforming parking surfaces permitted by the Village may remain unless a substantial portion, fifty (50) percent or greater, requires repair, or an addition to the parking surface occurs, and/but
      5.6.1(a)(3)  When an approved parking surface exists, all vehicles shall park on said approved parking surface effective upon enactment of this Ordinance (September, 2015).

What my vote, and those of Commissioners Anderson and Watts, in opposition to the new proposed revision did was re-deliver to Village residents and homeowners the default version of the parking and swale Ordinance, as excerpted above.  But this is very little less onerous, and perhaps in some ways more onerous, than the revision they fought.  So in that sense, I'm a worse cop.  "Be careful what you wish for..." the alleged Chinese proverb begins.

Because the other thing for which those who resisted the new revision wished was more aggressive adherence to the Code just discussed.  In my own rounds of the Village, I can attest that many Village properties are not at all in keeping with the letter or the spirit of the already codified Ordinance.  I would certainly not be one to argue against stronger demands for compliance.

Cervantes gave us the caricature of the knight who foolishly tilts at windmills.  Some of those who resisted the new revision complained that Village residents and homeowners were caught unawares by the revision.  By the tabulation of some, there have been 29 public meetings-- Commission meetings and workshops-- where these Ordinances have been discussed.  Openly, with prior notice, minutes kept, and an audience of spectators and participants.  And that doesn't take into account all the Code Review Committee meetings that were also fully open to the public.

They also complained that the Commission took it upon itself further to improve, in its judgement, the proposed Ordinance delivered to it by the Code Review Committee.  As if that wasn't precisely the job of the Commission.  As if the CRC, or any other Board or work group, was some highest or final authority in the Village.

I have always been a fierce defender of the Village's Boards, and I still am.  Or at least I'm still more than willing to be.  But that's on condition that the Boards have as much deference to the proper role of the Commission as I have to the proper role of the Boards, and the Boards work collaboratively and responsively with the Commission and the rest of the Village.

So for the moment, we are returned to the codified 5.6 section of the Code, describing permitted requirements for parking, and use of the swales.  It was my intention to further improve and strengthen this Ordinance, to "drive" parking off swales, onto property, and to limit or prevent impervious materials from being used.

By the way, some of those who resisted my effort to rid the Village of impervious surfacing agitate at the same time for ecological consideration.  Ecological consideration starts at home, so to speak.  It's disingenuous to appeal to South Miami or somewhere else to preserve some reportedly ecologically sensitive habitat, if we refuse to take our own measures here.  It is ecologically destructive to prevent surface water from penetrating into the ground, where it can dissipate, and instead leave it to erode the streets.

But here's what's really interesting about this matter, and why I'm not sure what kind of cop I am.  There had been bitter complaint about this Ordinance revision.  One of our neighbors furiously criticized "just three people [David Coviello, Roxy Ross, and me] who impose this on the whole neighborhood."  (I'm paraphrasing.)  So when I flinched, and didn't agree to the revision, the basis for complaint was gone.  In fact, the matter has now been postponed to the January, 2017, meeting, where it will be reconsidered by a new Commission, and that new Commission might not include me.  It might include a numerical majority of Village residents who have never been in office, most of whom have little or no Village profile and experience, and some of whom also complained about this revision.

You'd think several people would have approached me after the meeting to thank me for sparing them from the reviled imposition.  Not one person approached me at all.  Not one person thanked me for having acceded to their wishes, or for seeing the matter in a different way.  The reason is that those people weren't really complaining.  They just wanted someone to blame for this move to improve the neighborhood.

Now, a new Commission, of people wholly unprepared to deal with matters like this, are going to have to take responsibility.  They don't get David Coviello, Roxy Ross, and me to do the heavy lifting.   As one of the candidates said at the meeting, it isn't, in her view of it, the job of the Commission to "legislate from the dais."  In fact, that is precisely the one and only responsibility of the Commission.  And now, she's trying to get into the hot seat.  Clearly, it's not where she wants to be.

In "A Few Good Men," Jack Nicholson's character challenged and confronted polite society.  "You don't want to know the truth [of how order is kept]," he told them.  "You want me on that wall [protecting you].  You need me on that wall."  Because the public themselves don't want to take these responsibilities.  They want someone else to do what they then don't have to do, and for which they can then cast blame.