Sunday, June 9, 2019
"Let's Take an Example, Just for Fun."
I took the title of this post from a song in the magnificent 1954 musical, "The Pajama Game." The song, which is probably called "Picture This," is about an attempt to cure Heinzy, who is afraid that his gorgeous and sexy girlfriend will get interested in someone else, of his jealousy. Heinzy is given hypothetical situations that are increasingly provocative ("let's take an example, just for fun"), and asked to overcome his reflex to be jealous. "What would you do then, Heinzy?" "I... would trust her...I'll never be jealous again."
Anyway, what I'm thinking about is the last Commission meeting, which I characterized as one in which the Commission had no idea what it was doing, essentially about anything. I wasn't particularly specific about the Commission's aimless and reckless bumbling, but I thought now we could "take an example, just for fun."
As I mentioned, one of the issues discussed was a request by one of our neighbors to be allowed to keep chickens on the property. We were told the neighbor's/applicant's daughter was anxious, and someone decided the only thing to be done for the young girl was to allow her to have pet chickens. We were reassured that only hens, and no roosters, were requested. We were also told that this request was supported by the child's pediatrician, who had submitted a letter concluding his patient should be allowed to have a pet chicken that we were supposed to think of as like a service animal, or at least a special companion pet, which thereby addressed the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) consideration. But here's the problem.
The county has a regulation against farm animals being kept in urban settings (chickens are specifically included among those animals considered farm animals, and Biscayne Park is considered an urban municipality), and there is another general rule that municipalities (cities, towns, and villages, in Florida) can be more restrictive than counties, but they can't be less restrictive. What the Commission was being asked to do was to be less restrictive than the county. So, on the surface of it, the correct response to the applicant/BP resident was to tell them to make their case to the county, not to the Village. The Village could have supported the applicant's appeal to the county, by providing a letter of support and local agreement, but it could not have over-ruled the county's more restrictive position. This, by implication, would have required the Village (and Tracy Truppman) to acknowledge that some other entity had more authority than we do/Tracy does, which for Tracy Truppman is a non-starter. So we launched ourselves into a realm where we had no business being.
The applicant explained the girl's alleged medical/psychiatric situation, with some omissions and some distortions. And in "full disclosure" here, let me say that as a personal matter, if I did not concern myself with rules, I would be very sympathetic to the applicant, our neighbor. Hey, I like chickens vastly better than I like dogs and cats. And anyway, it pleases the girl and her family, does not affect me at all, and frankly, what do I care if they have chickens? But there are realities, too, and they include rules by which we all have to live together. The applicant was playing a bit fast and loose with those rules, and with the presentation. Our Village Code says a Village resident can have a maximum of four pets. The applicant currently has eight chickens. And it was more, except some died. We were told the applicant's daughter had to have pet chickens, because she is allergic, or something, to "fur." But I was also told privately, by someone I trust a great deal, that the family also have a pet cat. The application to be allowed to keep the chickens, and the note from the pediatrician, all came only after the chickens/chicks had already been acquired. The doctor didn't suggest chickens as a good idea. The family already had them, and told the doctor they made the girl less anxious. We were also told the girl needed protection from feelings of loss. By having pet chickens? How many decades does someone think they'll live? No one suggested the girl would need to take her pet chickens to school, too. So this was all very, very untidy.
Further, the applicant suggested that here in BP, the "bird sanctuary," we should naturally, by definition, welcome all birds. If you can have a parakeet or a canary, then having a chicken (or an ostrich?) should be the same thing. Like if you can have a dog, can you have a wolf or a hyena? If you can have a (house) cat, can you have a lion or a tiger? Come on.
And just as a different kind of illustration of the problem, Mac Kennedy spoke about a variance request, and this special request. The variance request was about a shed and a pergola someone wanted to keep. It wasn't clear if it was really allowed as it was built, but it was already there. No, Mac insisted. We have rules, and they must be followed. The girl and her chickens? Aw, Mac gushed, sure, let the girl keep her chickens. That kind of inconsistency coming from Mac is more or less harmless. But coming from an elected and paid Commission? Uh, no. But that's what we got.
And the Commission (really Tracy, who does all the talking) were all over the place. Oh, you have chickens you're not supposed to have? OK. Oh, you have twice the maximum permitted number of them? OK. I/we get it. This is medically necessary. Hey, the ADA probably doesn't give us any choice. But promise us that as the chickens die (what? the chickens that are supposed to protect the girl from loss are going to die?), they won't be replaced. OK, said the applicant. So, wait a minute. If our theory is that pet chickens are a medical necessity for this girl, how can we then prevent her from replacing them, when they...die?
Not one bit of this made any sense. The Commission doesn't make any sense. It has no idea what it's doing. And that was my point.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My point was hypocrisy. The commission, it its infinite wisdom, had minutes prior approved a resident to keep a flammable structure in the setback along a neighbor’s house. The resident had built the flammable structure without a permit, then applied for an after-the-fact permit but were denied BECAUSE ITS A FLAMMABLE STRUCTURE IN THE SETBACK! All things being relative, a non-flammable chicken for a little girl seemed reasonable enough. I was pushing them to be consistently ridiculous, and they did not disappoint.
ReplyDeleteDr. Jonas, I’ve self-diagnosed with PTSD from attacks from Tracy, Betsy and Mike Redmond at commission meetings. Will you write a letter for an emotional support Tasmanian Devil? They’re cuddlier than the she devils on the dais.
The variance approvals do show that the commissioners and mayor can be “nice” ... but only to residents who bend and break rules and not to those with higher expectations and who show up for anything other than begging forgiveness for transgressions.
ReplyDeleteI didn't recognize at the time that you were being sarcastic in suggesting the girl get to keep her chickens. You didn't sound that way.
DeleteIt isn't the job of Commissioners, or the Commission, to be "nice." It's their job to represent the interests of BP, to honor the Charter, and to be fair, not one part of which ever happens with the present Commission.
Fred you covered all the points I wanted to make - especially the part about the "after the fact" doctor's note. Can't quite get over the feeling this commission (except Dan) happily let themselves (and us) be scammed. There is also one big thing they did not address. The structure in which these chickens are housed. Any structure, even a 10x10 shed, must be permitted and inspected. To the best of my knowledge that has not happened here hence that structure is illegal. We've got no clue if it's properly constructed, anchored and placed. But then again this bunch has shown nothing but contempt for rules (except decorum of course!)
ReplyDeleteJaney, I didn't really mean to get so caught up in the details of the request. I just explored them for the purpose of making clear that the Commission didn't know what it was doing. My main substantive point was that our Commission should never have heard, and had no business hearing, this matter at all. Our Commission was being asked to over-rule the county, in the direction of being less restrictive, and the laws, for those who care about laws, don't permit that. But Tracy, and probably Betsy, like supplicants, and they wouldn't pass up an opportunity to pass judgment on something, even something which is not theirs to judge. Oddly, Rebecca Rodriguez sat silently, until I later wanted to review this, for the purpose of demonstrating what was wrong with the Commission, at which point, she shut me down. As has been mentioned more than once, Rebecca is one of Tracy's girls, and her job is to run interference for Tracy.
DeleteFred, they don't call me MacDonald "Meryl Streep, Million Email" Kennedy for nothing!
ReplyDeleteI've seen this movie before. this is how the bird flu pandemic starts......
ReplyDeleteNot to worry, MIKE. The applicant and Tracy have you covered. This very issue actually came up, and the applicant agreed to have the chickens monitored by a veterinarian. This is the applicant who does what he wants, covering himself and asking permission only later, when it's already done and not going to be changed, and Tracy Truppman, who retroactively agrees to anything, no matter how far out of Code or compliance.
DeleteSo, will a veterinarian in fact be consulted? Stay tuned (except there will be no follow-through), and keep that movie ready to watch.
As a further example of what we're talking about, and setting aside the conveniently unmentioned cat, there was also expressed concern about chickens running around loose. No, we were told, it won't happen. Although...the applicant did confess, when it was put to him, that sometimes the chickens did escape, but now, the family are more on alert and have a better system for securing the chickens. And again, it's not that I personally care at all. I would far prefer chickens running around BP to stray/feral cats and dogs marauding around. It's just that we were so jerked around by this issue. And, as I said, it's not even that, really. It's that the Commission has no idea what it's doing, how to approach any topic, and functions, as is said about Donald Trump, "transactionally." That is, what the present Commission (Tracy Truppman) values is not the substance of any issue, but the narcissistic dynamic of its own involvement. A matter is satisfactorily concluded, because the Commission commandeered some domination over the matter, not because the conclusion is in any way adaptive, and certainly not because the conclusion is in any way related to external rules. To look again at your concern, the valuable conclusion is that Tracy Truppman can say she thought about this, and got the applicant to agree to address it. Will it in fact get addressed? Will it even be followed up? Completely irrelevant. Tracy is smart (she thought about it), and she's concerned (she got the applicant to agree to something). That is the relevant dynamic.
Safest bet any of us will ever make is that there will be ZERO follow up on any of the items that were supposedly part of this "exception". And - here's one potential big problem. Now that the Village has been made aware of this chicken coop if they do nothing to get the property owner to bring it into compliance what is the Village's legal liability should that structure blow apart in a storm and cause damage to others and or other property?
DeleteThis is why we can’t have nice things!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am solidly pro-chicken. I don't want to be seen as defending the commission, but I think chickens are pretty great. Fresh eggs! If someone wants to have some chickens on their own property, let them! Keep your laws off my chickens. -- Brian P.
ReplyDeleteI totally, totally get it, Brian. And as I hope I made clear, I agree with the theory that chickens are not a bad animal to keep. I myself would appreciate the free eggs.
DeleteBut none of us can ask that we not be subjected to laws. We are all subjected to them. They're there for a reason. Is every law perfectly good, and doesn't do any bad? No, of course not. And every law is there in part because the concept behind the law would not naturally be adopted without the law. So in that sense, every law compromises someone, who would behave differently, but for that law.
But that really wasn't my issue. My issue is that the law in question is a county law. It restricts something. That's what all laws do. By some other law, local municipalities in Florida are not allowed to be less restrictive than are county and state laws. That's the law. (We as a Village can be more restrictive, and say no one in BP is allowed to keep any pets at all. But we can't be less restrictive, and say people are allowed to keep animals the county bans.) So there was no room, and the Village had no "standing," for the Village to over-ride the county law, and remove an imposition (be less restrictive). I'm not arguing that the county law is right, or the best idea. I agree with you, and the applicant. I would be happy, as a personal matter, to have people keep hens (but not roosters), even in an urban setting. But just as that was not the applicant's call, or my call, or your call, it was also not the Village's call. It just isn't. That's the law. For those who care about laws. Which every Commissioner is literally sworn to do.
Fred
LE-MERIDIAN FUNDING SERVICES. We are directly into pure loan and project(s) financing in terms of investment. We provide financing solutions to private/companies seeking access to funds in the capital markets i.e. oil and gas, real estate, renewable energy, Pharmaceuticals, Health Care, transportation, construction, hotels and etc. We can finance up to the amount of $900,000,000.000 (Nine Hundred Million Dollars) in any region of the world as long as our 1.9% ROI can be guaranteed on the projects.
ReplyDeleteLe-Meridian Funding Service -Email info@lemeridianfds.com.
lfdsloans@outlook.com
(WhatsApp...+1-989-3943-740 Or Call +1-913-9518-145)