Yet Another Correction, of Sorts. Maybe Just Clarification.

On February 12, I summarized parts of the Commission meeting from earlier that week.  I talked about two items discussed by the Commission.  One of those items had to do with a variance request.  Last night, eight days after the post publication, I got a call from the Village resident who applied for the variance.

The resident called, because his wife/family were upset by the post, and because he had heard from other Village residents and even people who do not live here (but who had somehow read the post) to the effect that my comments about his variance matter, and about him, had implications for his "reputation."  He and I had a long discussion (I didn't keep track, but it seems to me we were on the phone together about an hour), the seeming upshot of which was that he would like me to offer his side of the story.  It wasn't quite clear whether he wanted me to "correct" myself in any sense.  But he did think I was sort of wrong about some things.  At least, he thought there were things I didn't know, and that what I said subtly distorted what he considered to be the full reality.

I offered this neighbor the opportunity, as I always do, to write his own post: the other "he said."  But he told me that because of his involvement in media, he couldn't do that.  He, or his wife, or his friends, wanted something said, and he wanted me to say it.  I asked him, by the way, if he wanted me to avoid using his name, as I did in the original post.  He was slightly equivocal, but ultimately, yes, he wanted me to continue to avoid it.

I made a number of kinds of comments about this situation, and about our neighbor.  I said that he was an attorney, or at least that he was a member of the Florida Bar.  He thought the qualification was somehow dismissive or minimizing, and he wanted me to know that he is most certainly a law school graduate, that he is indeed a member of the Florida Bar, and that he has done formal legal work.  He does pro bono work for someone now.  In fact, he told me, his specific media work now is in investigative journalism, and he is either much aided by his legal training and experience, or he couldn't do the media job without it.

But the reason I quoted him as having said he was a member of the Florida Bar was that the mention of it seemed almost gratuitous, and coming at the time and under the circumstances it did, I thought it had the subtle implication of a threat.  Our neighbor said he meant no such thing, and he dismissed the idea that anyone would have thought so.  I told him I was merely an audience member, with nothing at stake, and I thought it sounded that way.

Second, I alluded to his background in the US armed services.  I'm not sure what was his issue about my mention of it, but he wanted me to know that he flew fighter planes.  If there was any impression on anyone's part that I was not respectful of his service record, he wanted me to know that it is very fully legitimate and advanced.  Twenty years, I think he said.

The matter of his "genetics" was a very interesting discussion between us.  His first comment to me was that his genetics had nothing to do with the variance issue, and it was unclear to him or anyone who approached him about it why I would even bother to mention it.  I hope our neighbor won't mind my revealing that he is 58 years old.  I suggested that in 58 years, he must have experienced many times that his genetics were held against him.  He agreed without hesitation or equivocation.  When I suggested that it could also be that his genetics may at times have accrued to his benefit (I mentioned "white guilt" and other similar dynamics), he bristled.  He insisted that he, and his family before him, have worked very hard for everything they've gotten, and he seemed to react as if I was accusing him of getting undue benefits, just because of his race.  Which, of course, in the matter of this variance, I was.  I told him that given my experience on P&Z, and my time on the Commission, I felt quite sure that taken only on its merits, the variance would never have been approved.

This led to our discussion of the variance.  Our neighbor, in discussing with me his legal training, told me he had provided a brief as part of his argument.  He asked me if I had seen the brief.  No, I had not.  He sort of scolded me for having come to conclusions without having investigated the entire record, and he told me he was sure I would be much more careful in evaluating a psychiatric case.  But, since I had not, in fact, seen his brief, and he offered it as the record of the unique circumstance which should properly have legitimized his application, I asked him to review with me what was the unique circumstance.  A longer conversation boiled down to the traffic-- vehicular and foot-- in the Village, and especially on Griffing, and especially on lower Griffing.  He says his neighbors agree with him.

Which, of course, is what I said originally.  And furthermore, although I did not discuss this with our neighbor, I personally don't object to fences and walls in BP.  Whether property owners want them for security, privacy, or just appearance, it's fine with me.  But I don't make the rules.  We have rules, they're in the Codes, and fences and walls are not allowed in front yards.  Our neighbor already had a wall (he told me it was already there when he moved in 13 years ago), and he wanted to extend it a foot higher.  It would be OK with me, but it's not allowed by our Code.  And the fact that our neighbor doesn't like what feels to him like threatening traffic is not a unique feature of his property.  He's got a lot of company.  If he wishes we would change our Code to allow front yard fences and walls, so do I.

So, we had a very nice talk.  Let there be no mistake: our neighbor is a fully trained and Bar-admitted attorney.  He has a noteworthy military background.  He's black, but it has never felt like an advantage to him.  And he won his case about the wall extension.  It's just that I disagree.  And I have my own way of thinking through it, and trying to make sense of a conclusion that was contrary to what the Codes say it should have been.

Our neighbor called originally suggesting he and I needed to sit down and have a cup of coffee together.  In exploring with him what we needed to discuss, it seemed to me our coffee date shouldn't wait until next week, which was the next time he and I were both available for 7:45 PM coffee.  We had our conversation last night.  But he said he'd still like to meet, and I would, too.  So I suggested either that we have our coffee next week, or that he and his wife come over, and I'd cook them dinner.  He says he'll ask her.