What, Another "Love Fest?" Perhaps Not Quite as Loving as Some. But a Fest All the Same.

At the March Commission meeting this past Tuesday, we had the second reading of an Ordinance approving our borrowing up to $350K to finish the log cabin/annex project.  Although the dispute about this matter has been mostly irrational and pointless, still there has been some.

Roxanna Ross and Ana Garcia from the last Commission, and Roxy, David Coviello, and Heidi Shafran Seigel from this one, worked hard to get the State to grant us over $1M for this project.  There's no way we could have done more than repainting without this kind of help.  But considering the extent of the complex tasks, we had to contribute $50K of our own, and even at that, we came up $350K short.

Either we do the work, or we don't.  And if we do it, we have to scare up $350K.  David Coviello and I were apprehensive about doing the whole task at once, because of the shortfall, but our Commission colleagues, and a number of our other neighbors, persuaded us that we should do it all now.  There was discussion about where to get this kind of money, and the most forceful and confident advice from our Manager was to borrow it.  Again, a number of our neighbors agreed.  Not all of the Commission was so sure, though.  Barbara Watts declared the equivalent of "over [her] dead body," and Bob Anderson was distinctly skittish.  For this approval to happen, at least four of the five of us had to agree, and Bob at least tentatively did agree last month.  He didn't feel good about it, but he was willing to be dragged along.  So the first reading of the Ordinance passed by its minimum requirement: 4-1.

This week, we had to revisit the matter for the second reading.  Bob appeared to have reconsidered his reluctance, and indications were that he was now committed.  Barbara was not so quick to capitulate, if that was what would get her endorsement.  (Yes, for those keeping score, the matter was already settled, with or without Barbara.  But since the resistance was so empty, it would have been nice to have had the most enthusiastic commitment possible.)

The pre-meeting grumblings have been increasingly weak, though they have happened.  They have seemed almost more reflexive than considered.  Barbara had dredged them up last month, and it seemed as if she might try to take her quixotic stand this month, too.

She was disarmed, though.  Heidi Seigel had spent time with her, answering all her questions, and providing full reassurance, and Chuck Ross in his public comments gave her every reason to have full confidence in agreeing to borrow.  In the end, Barbara voted with the rest of us, in favor of taking the loan.  The vote was 5-0, as it should have been all along.  What Barbara told herself and us was that she could see it was going to pass anyway, so she might as well climb on board.  But I would like to offer her more credit than that.  I think she really did get it.  I think she saw not only what was going to happen, but that it was the right thing, and even why it was the right thing.  And it was great to have her endorsement.  It might not have included all the unequivocal enthusiasm in the world, but she did join us: the rest of the Commission and all but a very few heels-dug-in neighbors.  Or was it just one heels-dug-in neighbor?

SMDCAC Makes Me Very Happy.

I have talked before about South Miami-Dade Cultural Arts Center.  If you don't remember, it's an arts venue in Cutler Bay.  They have music and theater there.  It's 27 miles down I-95/US1 from my door to the theater.

I heard a concert there tonight.  I heard one there last night, too.  I'm there a lot.  It's very well worth the trips.  The fact is, I have never heard any concert there I didn't love.  The talent is amazing.

And the prices are low.  One of the first shows I ever saw there was Keb Mo'.  If I remember correctly, the ticket price was about $40.  It was about $70 to hear him at the Lyric Theater in Stuart the night before.  The ticket prices at SMDCAC are always low.  And parking is free.

The staff there are most unusual.  I am on friendly terms with Eric Fliss, the managing director.  I buy tickets usually from Brian or Dora.  They used to call me Mr Jonas, but now they call me Fred.   They greet me that way.  When the ticket-takers greet you, they're unbelievably friendly.  They act like you've done them a valued personal favor by coming to the theater.

And then there's the unfortunate event of a concert that can't be attended at the last minute.  I myself haven't missed any, but some of the people I go with have.  When I approach the box office to say some of the party couldn't attend, they take the tickets back, and put the value of them on my account.  I use that credit to buy other tickets.  Who does that?

Do yourself a favor, and check out smdcac.org.  Take a look at the rest of this season.  There's lots of stuff, it runs quite a range of styles and genres, and it seems unimaginable you wouldn't find something that appeals to you.  I've often attended concerts there just because they looked intriguing, and I've never been disappointed.

There's a regular auditorium, and the acoustics are excellent.  Then, there's a cabaret room where all the seating is at small tables, with food and bar service.  The closest I ever sat was with my knees touching the stage.  For about $20-$25 per ticket.  To hear great performances.

If you think I'm exaggerating, ask John Holland.  I've seen him and Elena there more than once.

This is an incredible resource for this County.  (It's a County-owned venue.) If you go, I promise you won't be sorry.

A Message From Steve Bernard and Me

From Steve:

For the First Time Ever, Biscayne Park is About to Borrow Money

Seeing as how no one else (except Commission Barbara Watts - see below) has brought it to your attention, there's a First Ordinance reading tomorrow night (2/3/15) to borrow $350,000. 

The purpose is to pay for the difference between State Grants accepted by the Village and the estimated costs to build a new Administration Building and rehab the Log Cabin. Here's the Agenda item - http://www.biscayneparkfl.gov/vertical/sites/%7BD1E17BCD-1E01-4F7D-84CD-7CACF5F8DDEE%7D/uploads/Agenda_Item_9.a_Regular_Commission_Meeting_02_03_2015.pdf

Our Current Charter, passed in 2006, allows for borrowing, pending certain requirements, and I do think that there are times when a government can borrow responsibly, but the term "responsibly" apparently has different meanings to different people.

There are many questions on this Ordinance (and there will have to be a Second Reading, although I don't know when that might be, by law it has to be at least 10 days from the First Reading), so I'll just put some of them out there, and you all can decide if now is the time to make this decision.

1. As I said, Biscayne Park has never borrowed money before, other than for vehicles, most of which have been lease purchases. Seems like such a momentous occasion lasting 15 years might be worthy of some conversation from our Commissioners (other than at the Commission Meeting), or a newspaper article, an email blast... something to engage the public to get our thoughts. But - nothing but silence, even though the Commission has known about this shortfall since the middle of December. Where's the outreach and transparency?

2. When only one bank responded on 1/22/15 to a 1/14/15 RFP for financing, why didn't we hold off so that we could get more options? The deal CNB is offering us is $350,000 at 4.25% for 15 years - could we do better if we had more than a one week RFP? Is the loan such a problem that no other bank wanted a part of it?

3. The annual cost of the loan, for 15 years, will be $31,876.40. Where is it coming from? According to the backup, $20,000 comes from our Contingency Fund, and $16,577 comes from something called, “Returned to Reserves". Amazing how after years of saying how we're going broke, we can in one month come up with almost $32,000 at the drop of a hat. Maybe more importantly, if anyone knew we'd have this shortfall during our budget season, why didn't we plan for this? Maybe because once again, we're not going as broke as we've been told? And if we didn't know we'd have a shortfall... well, what does that say?

4. There is good news - there's more money in our finances that we thought. As per the backup, pg 5 , "The Finance Director also highlighted that the “½ Cent Sales Tax” revenue is on track to increase from the amount that was projected in the revenue budgeted line item." It doesn't say how much more, but enough that there's no concern about paying an extra $32,000 this year. What about the next 14 years? Is it possible that when this Commission says we have to Annex because we're going broke, they throw around statements to 'prove' we're going broke, but when they want to borrow $350,000, things are going great?

5. And even better news on our reserves? Pg 5 of the backup states, "While the most previous fiscal year audit is to be completed in the spring of 2015, we anticipate returning an estimated $100,000.00 to reserves."  Wow! So instead of our reserves going down (a big part of the Annexation argument, and still no answer from the Manager or Commission about exactly what we've spent our Reserves on in the last  to 10 years), "As of the September 30, 2013 audit, the audited general fund reserves amount for the Village is: $407,685", so this year we're going to add 25% of that amount. Tell me again how we're going so broke we had to outsource Sanitation (and $74,933 of the money is coming from the sale of our Sanitation Trucks) and Annex other areas.

6. What's the planned collateral to the bank for this loan? Page 6 says, "the Finance Director is recommending that the Village pledge its “½ Cent Sales Tax” revenue that is received from the State of Florida as collateral for the proposed loan." I'm sure confused about this - if we need revenue so bad... why are we, and how can we, pledge funds that we need to operate the Village?

7. How did this go so wrong - did we seriously ask for Grant money for a project that the Grant couldn't cover and we had no money for, did we not even attempt to reduce the Scope of Work to stay within that budget, did we not commission the Architect to come in on budget or pay redesign fees, did we not make public the Shortfall until the night we signed a Contract for more than $833,000 (at an un-televised Special Commission meeting), thinking that we could figure out some way to make it work - spending money without know where it was coming from? 

Yes, our Log Cabin needs significant work. Yes, borrowing is now legal and it has it's place. But is this the way it's going to happen? With just one loan bid, with virtually no public notice, without concern for what our collateral is, with a diametrically opposed version of what we've been told our finances have been? Or maybe the tactic of putting our millage rate at 9.7 was purely so the argument for Annexation could be made - because that extra $32,000 a year sure would have gone a long way to 'making Biscayne Park a better place to be'.

Let's talk about this before jumping into a 15 year commitment.

Sincerely,

Steve Bernard

Steve and I are not pleased.  We're both concerned about the Village borrowing money.  I don't share Steve's complaint about the fantasy that Village residents didn't have an opportunity to hear about this.  It was on the Commission Agenda for December, and anyone who wanted to listen or express an opinion had an excellent opportunity.  I'm sorry if Steve was busy that day, and didn't come to the meeting, but that was the chance to "talk about this."*

And it's not really the first time the Village has borrowed money.  But I can see that Steve makes a more dramatic point if he claims it is.  I like a good story as much as anyone else, so I thought it was an engaging enough hook.  Steve clearly states that this is the first time the Village has borrowed money, except for the other times we borrowed money.  I hope this leaves no ambiguity.

Steve agrees, and I agree with him, that "our Log Cabin needs significant work."  It's a shame Steve didn't have that insight when he was on the Commission, or when a majority of the Commission were people he particularly favored, for two years until the end of 2013.  If he'd realized the needs of the log cabin then, he could have led a campaign to make those improvements when it would have been cheaper and easier.  Oh, well.  Better late than never, perhaps.  Although if it were that simple, Steve wouldn't be complaining.

I'm not sure what Steve means when he says Commissioners should discuss these things, but not only at Commission meetings.  I agree Steve has done a good deal of talking about things outside Commission meetings, but he should know about the Sunshine Law, and that some of us take it seriously.

Steve is whining that only one lender responded to an RFP.  Was there a point?  As many lenders responded as wanted to make the loan.  As long as the number of respondents was at least one, we have solved our problem.

But then, Steve gets real.  He points out that we are about to incur debt that we don't have an improved way to settle.  This is important.  What we want the loan for is something that will not make the Village any more money than it already has.  This is a risky business.  We create more expense without creating more revenue to cover it.  That's why I was against borrowing.  I agree with Steve here.  Steve gives us a little elbow, and reminds us about that reserve that's getting juicier.  I'm all over it, Steve.  That's exactly where I thought we should take the cost of the annex building overrun, so we wouldn't have to borrow.**

I also agree with him when he reports the "good news" that Village finances are improving.  Yes, that is good news.  Steve is tempted to conclude that maybe it's such good news that it may mean we don't have to annex other land usage across the tracks.  No, the news is not that good.  We still can't do what this Village needs to do, even if we're moving in the direction of some increase in revenue.  Not only can't we afford median improvement, we can't even afford the cost of a landscape architect to tell us what that improvement should be.  Fix the streets?  Um, I sure don't think so.  And we're still bemoaning the skanky and dirty mulch at the tot lot, because it costs $30K to replace it with a good surface.  A barrier wall along the track?  Ooh, in our dreams.  Not without a major infusion, like what might result from annexation.  But Steve is not wrong.  Even modest improvement is good news.

I can see Steve's point about pledging Village revenues as collateral.  If we need money, which we do, isn't it a risk to pledge revenue as collateral?  Sure it is, but you don't give up the collateral, unless you default on the loan.  If you feel confident about your ability to repay, you can pledge any collateral you want.  You're not going to lose it.  So Steve is twisting this unnecessarily, but he's given himself good exercise.  I imagine the lad is very fit by now.

Steve and I agree that if the job costs more than we have, we should consider not doing the whole job.  Steve realized this possibility, and so did I, and so did David Coviello.  Dave and I talked during a Commission meeting about holding back part of the job, and proceeding once we had more funding in hand, but we got outvoted by the rest of the Commission.  If I recall, Steve got outvoted a time or two on the Commission, and his three Commission puppets sometimes outvoted the other two Commissioners, too.  That happens.  All I can say to Steve is that you learn to take it in stride.

Finally, Steve and I agree that the millage is wrong.  I've advocated for 10 mills, and so has Steve, when he was on the Commission.  I got outvoted, and Steve did, too.  But I still say we're right.


*Inexplicably, despite all the questions Steve was so careful to ask, he did not come to the Commission meeting last night where answers were available.  That was another opportunity to "talk about this."  Since he clearly did not want the answers, it is unclear what he meant by posing the questions.

**I had prepared to request that if we were to borrow any money, we at least take part of the amount from the reserves.  A number of our neighbors, in their public comments, spoke persuasively about what they considered the inadvisability of taking anything from the reserves, and they urged relying entirely on a loan instead.  They convinced me, and I agreed to support borrowing.

From Liset's Mouth to Your Ears: Peerby.com. And You Might Want to Get Naked.

My brother put me onto this site.  Apparently, he knows it and likes it.  So I joined.  Evidently, Peerby wishes you would, too.

Hi Fred,

Thanks for trying out Peerby! My name is Liset and I wanted to reach out to you personally, because you are one of the first people in your neighborhood to join our community. Congratulations, this makes you a Peerby Pioneer!

Being a pioneer can be lonely at times and Peerby works best when your neighbors become members too. We would love to spread the Peerby sharing spirit all over the world but for that we need help from brave Peerby Pioneers like you. Do you like to help spreading the love and make your neighborhood an even better place to live?

Here’s some inspiration what you could write:

Hey guys! Need something you don't want to buy? Why not borrow it from your neighbors for free? Join me at http://Peerby.com

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or any feedback for us. I would love to hear from you!

Sunny greetings,

Liset

PS: I don't know why Liset would love to hear from me.  I'm not sure what she has in mind for me to "borrow."  But maybe she'd be just as happy to hear from you.

One of my BP friends put me onto a very interesting wine distributor.  It's called NakedWines.  Their site is nakedwines.com.

NakedWines claims that costs of wines are inflated by too many middlemen, and they endeavor to cut them out of the deal.  The serve as the one link between the consumer and the vintner.  They essentially commission vintners, who are encouraged to make the best wines they can, and NakedWines creates a population of consumers for these unique wines.  In fact, NakedWines says that the wines they commission are not available to anyone but NakedWines members.

I think my friend suggested me to NakedWines, because NakedWines sent me a $100 introductory voucher.  The offer was on a case of wine (12 bottles), with an extra three bottles added.  So 15 bottles of supposedly exceptional wine.  NakedWines says the "retail" value of this case would be around $350.  Their normal discount price is $169.99.  My voucher brings that down to $69.99.  Shipping is $9.99.  So I'm supposedly getting $350 (plus shipping) worth of wine for just under $80.  Thereafter, I'm back to their normal discount pricing of somewhere around $170 per case.  Plus $10 shipping.  They never send you any wine you don't specifically request.  They have a site, you go on it, you choose what you want (if you want anything), and they send it.  If you don't ask, they don't send.

The intended level of involvement in NakedWines is what they call their "Angels."  I'm not an Angel.  Yet.  I have to wait for an opening, maybe in a month or so.  Angels are charged $40 a month, every month.  This creates a bank which NakedWines uses to underwrite the vintners, and which represents the Angels' advance investment in purchasing wine.  Whenever I want wine, the money that will pay for it will come initially from my NakedWines bank.  Only if I want more wine than I've paid for in advance (at $40 a month) will NakedWines further bill my credit card.  And if I ever no longer want to be a NakedWines member/Angel, they will return to me whatever is in my NakedWines bank.

I've had some of these wines at my friend's house, and I can attest that they are, in fact, excellent.  So I joined.  If you want to do this yourself, let me know, and I'll sponsor you.  I assume that will mean you'll get a voucher, too.

Tom Ferstle-A letter of concern about proposed changes to Village Charter

First of all, I'd like to thank you, Fred, for the invitation to add to the blog. I don't know who is reading it, but I would like to contribute to a responsible discussion about issues of concern to all of us who love living in Biscayne Park as much as my family and my friends do. I had the opportunity to attend tonight's meeting on this same issue-and I know that my flyer was taken to task as misrepresenting the issues that the board was considering-but I think that perhaps that impression was taken from having only read the title of the flyer-"The City of Biscayne Park Want to Destroy Your Front Yard." Admittedly that is a flamethrower of a title! But, I was afraid no one would read it if they thought it was a Domino's coupon or a church bingo announcement. The main thrust of my argument and complaint was that I thought that the language of the proposed changes really didn't address the intent of the Chapter's original intent that seems to be to be about safe traffic through the village. Anyways, I wrote a letter explaining this to the Commissioners and our Mayor, and Fred graciously offered me an invitation to post it here, so I do without further comment and I await yours. Like most of the endeavors in my life, I find out how much I don't know shortly after I begin, and I suspect this experience will be similar.

January 24, 2015

Subject: Proposed changes to Ch. 5 of Charter and Ordnances

Ref: January 26^th meeting at 7PM for citizen input

Dear Mayor and Commissioners,

  I am contacting you in regards to the proposed changes to Ch. 5 of the Village Charter. Since last weeks meeting in regards to this matter I have had a little more time to study the proposed changes in the document. I have argued in the attached flyer that the Board seems to have gone off track from the original intent of the particular chapters concerns which dealt primarily with concerns about safe traffic through the park (see Section 5.1.1-Purpose). Instead, the Board(s) seems to have become preoccupied with aesthetic concerns about the types of foliage that may or may not be put in someone’s front yard. For example, when a Board(s) that supposedly is interested in making sure that a clear line of sight is available in the “right of way” becomes mired down in specifying which types of organic mulch are permissible, it is evident that the train has left the tracks.

I would like to see the original language of the section (5.3.4.b) preserved in regards to “Landscaping.” This language is clearly focused on the issue of safety in regards to line of sight-“clear zone,” and it allows for deviances for specific trees, shrubs, etc., that are maintained in such a way that common sense can be used in determining whether or not the landscaping constitutes a “traffic hazard.”

While I walked around our Village yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak with four of our police officers-partly to inform them what I was doing, but also to ask them if they had been consulted by either of the Board(s) about safety issues in re-drafting this section of the Ordinances. None of the officers I spoke to had been asked for their opinion. One officer informed me that he had recently attended training to do the kind of enforcement duties regarding existing codes. I would be very comfortable allowing the police or other code enforcement officers to determine the “safety” concerns regarding specific landscaping on existing properties.

I am afraid that the proposed language will place an undue hardship on many of our neighbors and citizens (and me, too!). Please do not approve the proposed language, and insist that the Board(s) return to the drawing board and preserve the intent of the Chapter to address its original function-to ensure the safe passage of vehicles and pedestrian traffic in the Park.

One of the great difficulties in drafting any kind of rules is the possibility of unseen consequences. There is a temptation to try to use language in such a way as to prohibit any possible misunderstandings, but the nature of language itself and perhaps the beauty of it is that everyone understands things differently. I believe and support the Board(s) attempt to clarify and renew the health of our Village Charter, however, in this specific case it may be best to leave this section as it is.  Allow our code enforcement officers to use their own discretion and work with individual homeowners when a property presents a safety hazard, and allow the wonderful and beautiful diversity of our many different landscapes and properties to be preserved.

Sincerely,

Tom Ferstle

11220 NE 8^th Ct

Biscayne Park, Fl 33161

954-604-9175

"All the Best?"

A Message From Noah Jacobs Recent Important Events in Our Neighborhood January, 2015

Governance is 1 part stewardship, 2 parts representation   (Interesting calculation Noah has done.) First of all I want to wish all of you a very belated happy and healthy new year. 2015 has brought some significant, healthy and optimistic changes for me and my immediate family. I hope that you and your respective families are also starting the year on the right note.  I'd like to take a moment of your time to tell you a bit of what is going on in the community. This afternoon, I got a flyer on my door as many of you might have. It appears that the new Code Review Board has proposed some significant changes to Chapter 5 (section 5.3.4)of the Code. As it is currently written, the flyer states (and I agree) that the purpose of chapter 5 is to guarantee the safety of both the individual citizen, and the safe passage and usage of cars, and other vehicles in our community. The changes being suggested by the Code Review Board no longer adhere to the spirit of the original code.  (We'll find out shortly what Noah's agreement sounds like.) To view the original code click here. If you were unable to take part in the workshop, (Ashamedly, I have to say I was not there) I urge you to go to theVillage website. While these might not be the final changes made to the code, these are examples of possible changes the Board might put forward.  (So Noah is ashamed to say he didn't bother to come to the meeting, and the proposed changes might not even be final.) Commissioner Jonas is now going around talking to anyone and everyone who will listen (which by his admission is not many) about how much he wants to get things done, as compared to the previous administration. Commissioner Jonas is absolutely correct. The current Commission is moving forward on a good bit of legislation.  (Interesting link.  Feel free to check it out.  What Noah suggests is a limitation on my part regarding whom I can find to listen to what I have to say was actually a failure on the part of people like Noah to come talk to me about concerns, ask questions, and have a discussion.  Apparently, that does not prevent Noah from complaining that I won't listen.) Let's review some of the "achievements" they have secured: They have restricted your ability to have leisure craft in the Park.  (Here's the first example of Noah's abdication of his agreement with the balance of responsibilities described in the flyer he endorses.  Noah remembers the responsibility to look out for the interests of individual residents, but he has forgotten the responsibility to look out for the needs of the neighborhood as a whole.) They voted to outsource some of our services, disregarding an overwhelming number of residents who expressed a desire to keep those services in house.   (Ah, yes, that balance of stewardship and representation of individuals' wishes.)             There was even a significant problem within our police department, and we as residents were only notified by outside media sources (unless of course you went to the police department and noticed the door locked and no response to knocking). The administration could have put something out reassuring us that all police shifts were covered. I hear there is even a report that was created to explain what the problem was. I wonder when that report is going to see the light of day.  (Noah has no use for anyone else's determination and management of priorities. It appears Galileo was wrong when he suggested what rotated around what, or whom.) Heck, we got a wonderful grant, (h/t ((hat tip)) Mayor Coviello)for the renovation of the log cabin of $1 million dollars from the State. Unfortunately, whoever was responsible for writing the RFP (Request for Proposal) did not put a cap on the cost. The Commission ended up accepting a proposal that could cost as much as $1.4 million dollars.  (If Noah is suggesting it's too bad we could not have gotten more commitment and representation from the prior Commission and Mayor, I agree.  The result of capping the costs would have been, or would be, that we do less of the work.  And we could.  That was discussed at a recent Commission meeting.  [I don't think Noah was there.]  We decided it was best to do all the work now, and raise the money later.  Apparently, Noah disagrees.  That's fine.) Early in 2011, Commissioner Anderson argued with me about a public computer in the rec center because he felt a $70 ink cartridge was a frivolous expense. Forgive me, but I think a $400,000.00 obligation is a bit more worrisome.   (Noah has made clear what seems prudent to him: doing nothing.) With a record like this, I wouldn't be so eager to "get things done".  (Noah took two years to make clear that his preference is, as he now reiterates, not to get anything done.  That turned out not to be a winning approach for him in the last election.  But he hasn't changed his feeling about it.) Transparency and responsiveness to the citizens of our great Village have not been a strong point in the last year. Hopefully, the Commissioners can show that they are responsive to the will of the people in regard to code and a myriad of other issues, and not just doing something to "get it done".  (The current Commission has been eminently transparent.  "Responsive" to what?  Whims, or the demands of responsible stewardship?) All the best,  (Of what?) Noah PS: Please feel free to share this email.

musimelange. My Deep Apologies.

As I sat through musimelange this week, and drank in the experience, I realized I had done a terrible disservice by not publicizing this.  The room was not full, and it very much should have been.

Musimelange is the concept of Anne Chicheportiche.  Anne is a professional violinist, a sometimes member of the Miami Symphony Orchestra, and the wife of MiSO's concertmaster, Daniel Andai.  This is my third year attending musimelange offerings.  They are musical events, and they occur on about four Monday evenings per year.  When I started attending, the musicians or soloists were often whoever was the guest soloist from the MiSO concert the immediately preceding weekend.  At this point, the soloists are often enough unconnected to the MiSO concert.

Musimelange occurs at a venue called the M Building.  It's at the corner of NW 2nd Avenue and 30th Street, within the Wynwood district.  I have no idea what the purpose of this building is supposed to be, but it appears it's likely a function hall of some sort.  There is an ongoing art display there, but the pieces are very unusual, there is no information about them, and they are not for sale.  The building appears to be set up like a house, with various rooms that correspond almost to those of a residence.  There is also a nice size, well-landscaped, and enclosed yard to the side of the property.

The musimelange event is an evening of food and music.  Anne puts together the program for each evening.  Generally, there is a selection of wines, and sometimes beers, of which you can have as much as you like.  A gourmet caterer Anne engages provides food, and the food is presented in individual servings.  Again, you take as much/many as you like.  None of the dishes constitutes a full meal, but all of them together are filling enough.

Events are called for 7:30, which is when you can come from the anterooms to the main event room.  The latter appears to be a salon-like room letting out to the garden.  An extension of that room is set up as a small kitchen, which is where the food service is.  Wine is served on the outside patio, which also features many pieces of outdoor furniture, in case you want to sit out for a while.

Once everyone has had his and her fill of food, the music begins.  This is a very intimate setting.  Guests mingle with each other, with Anne and other program organizers and helpers, and even with musicians and performers.  The performance room is set with chairs and couches, and it looks like there's room for maybe 30 or so people.  That's it.  It's a very small chamber arrangement, and the concert is just for you.  It has a feel as if someone performed a concert for you at your house.

The music is top, top shelf.  I have seen many performers there over the past three years.  This past Monday, the most featured performer was a guy named Corky Siegel.  This was the third time I've seen him: twice at musimelange, and once as the guest soloist at MiSO.  Corky plays two instruments, sometimes simultaneously.  He plays harmonica and blues style piano.  He's amazing.  Not to lapse into adulation of MiSO, but what symphony orchestra creates a program to feature a harmonica and blues piano player?  And in chamber concert, Corky is total entertainment.  He's 71, energetic, and he has a great way with his audience.  Everything he and the group did on Monday was blues-inspired.  His musical partners included Matthew Santos, whose guitar-playing and singing style are reminiscent to me of the better known of the modern young performers, like Ben Harper, Jason Mraz, and some others.  He has a gorgeous voice, and his song-writing is entrancing.  This was my second time hearing Matthew, also at musimelange.  Joining them was Chihsuan Yang.  I've heard her at musimelange, too.  She plays classical violin, as well as a single-stringed Chinese instrument of which I don't know the name.  And she provides back-up vocals.  Spectacular.  Three performers were advertised, but four people played.  Dani Andai joined, and he was as amazing as he always is.  He had done a magnificent solo at the MiSO concert the night before, too.  The musimelange concert was perfect, and a better musical time could not have been had.  The food and wine were great as well.  Dessert, served after the music, was chocolate mousse.

So we're talking about a decent amount of wonderful food (a lot of food, if you keep taking more), essentially all the wine you want (the wine was very, very good, and all French this time), and a concert you would never have a chance to experience in regular life.  Unless you have very rich friends who like to put on very special events.  If you buy your ticket at the door, it costs $65.  If you have a little bit of foresight, you can buy it online for $55.  If you sign up, as I did, for all four offerings this year, it's $50 per ticket.  This is money extremely well spent.  And for a souvenir, I got one CD of Matthew Santos and one of Chihsuan Yang, for $10 each.

If this interests you, and it should, you can find musimelange at musimelange.com.  You'll see what the rest of this year's calendar looks like, and you can buy tickets.  I will tell you that I have attended all or almost all of these concerts for two years (this makes my third year), and I have never heard one that was less than perfect.  The food and alcohol are also always terrific.  Do yourself a favor.

Swales… Who Knew?

Last night a workshop was held at the Rec Center hosted by the Code Review and Park and Parkways Boards. Topic… Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Swales But Were Afraid To Ask.

All kidding aside, this was to discuss proposed changes to our code regarding swale use, definitions, and prohibited uses along with several other issues. About 34 residents showed up which was a refreshing sign. It is vital moving forward for us all to understand the need to get information DIRECTLY FROM THE SOURCE instead of relying on the opinions of others not specifically involved in the process. This has, in the past lead to unnecessary conflict and innuendo. Facts trump opinions every time! This is why this workshop was sponsored by the Village and these two boards as it should be.

There was some degree of confusion as to what proposed actions (if any) would actually be, when they would take place and really the very purpose of these potential changes.  My observation was that the residents who spoke didn’t seem to favor the proposed clear zones and/or the tiered 3 zone creation concept. Personal examples were offered and why this would cause a hardship for each resident. Instead of offering any further personal opinions on the meeting I have provided a video of the excerpts. Aside- must remember to bring the bigger battery next time- end aside.

Link is located here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpnABnXkc9I

As I was stuck behind the camera during the meeting, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the board members for their time and efforts towards any and all possible improvements for our Village. 

Milton Hunter

Resident   

Art For Art's Sake. But Whose Art? And Who's Art?

In entreating around looking for donations for the "Ballplayer" sculpture, Chuck Ross and I have encountered a very unexpected source of resistance.

Biscayne Park is a unique neighborhood, and it has a unique population.  Chuck and I have knocked on a lot of doors looking for donations, and we have been surprised with what frequency the person who lives in the home we visit declares that he or she, him- or herself, is an artist.

How fortuitous, Chuck and I initially imagined, to find a neighbor who, seemingly by definition, would be most understanding, most appreciative, and most sympathetic to our mission.  We would have expected to get the largest, or at least most enthusiastic, donations from artists.  If they're "starving artists," we would figure on any loose change the art-lover (art-creator!) could scrounge up.

Not one bit.  Oddly, we were the most unceremoniously rejected by artists who live here.  We almost never received a donation from an artist.  I say "almost," because one local artist did give us a very small donation, grudgingly, at the insistence of his wife, after he himself had refused.

So the question is, what gives?  How are these people, who should "get it" more than anyone else, so unwilling to participate in and contribute to public art here?  And not to pick on Barbara Watts (although why not?), but she, the self-proclaimed art historian, has also been almost unwavering in dismissing, demeaning, and rejecting public art in BP.  Sure, she seems to know nothing about any art that was not made in the XVth Century, but still, shouldn't she be sympathetic to the concept of expression through art, and public beautification through public display of art?  Maybe she has no feeling for any art that has not been declared a "masterpiece" by some expert.  It's not the trivial or modestly decorative XVth Century works that have survived for 600 years.  Does she think all art, or all legitimate and worthy art, is only grand?

Back to the question at hand, why are those who should be most sensitive, most appreciative, and most supportive the ones who are most dismissive, most demeaning, and least interested?  I'll tell you now, Chuck has no idea.  He was at a complete loss for an explanation.  I was thinking that maybe the driving factor is jealousy.  If the Village wants public art, and if Chuck and I are taking donations to acquire some, why didn't we approach our own local artists for public art?  What are they, chopped liver? 

Setting aside that we have no idea our neighbors are artists, unless they find a way to publicize the fact, I would count that complaint as a fair one.  A similar complaint is that seemingly, Chuck and I have chosen pieces for the neighborhood, and no one else was consulted.  That's not strictly true, but let's use it, too, as a focus of criticism. 

But here's the problem.  When an artist neighbor tells us he or she is an artist, we show great enthusiasm, and we ask them if they have something, or would like to produce something, the Village can buy from them or that they would like to donate to the Village.  We have had no takers, except a possible "I'll think about it" from the artist neighbor who gave the Village the small donation.  Similarly, when someone says they don't dislike the idea of public art, but they do dislike the pieces the Village has acquired, we always ask them to find something they do like, so they can take up their own collection, and we will help them.  It's like we're talking to ourselves.

By the same token, some resist the concept of public acquisition of art, suggesting instead that we accept public art on loan.  That way, we can benefit from it, and we don't have to buy it.  Great, Chuck and I say.  We're totally on board.  Frankly, I myself have worked somewhat hard to find loaned art, and I haven't succeeded.  I've spoken to artists, to galleries, and to artists' agents.  But I never said I was good at this.  I'm just eager and appreciative.  If someone else knows someone, or has a way to do this better than I have, please, by all means...!  Nope.  Nothin'.  Not from the artists, not from the alleged professional appreciators of art, not from the critics.

The fact is, we've already succeeded twice, and we're well on the way to succeeding a third time.  There's advance enthusiasm for a fourth piece (the Lueza), too.  The reason is that there are many more people who do get it, and who appreciate what this is about, than there are nay-sayers and resistors.  It's just unexpected, and curious, that there isn't more support, and the most enthusiastic support, from the people who, by virtue of their "day jobs," have declared themselves most deeply committed to art.

Art in the Park. Over the Dead Bodies of Some.

Interesting discussion about public art at the Commission meeting last night.  My suggestion was that we raise about $10K per year by charging each homeowner $8 per year.  I know it doesn't sound like enough to talk about, but that was the proposal.  Hoo boy, I guess not!

Some of our neighbors don't want the Village to contribute anything.  (Meaning $8 a year is too rich for their blood.)  Some felt acquisition of public art should not be a public project (really?), and some just didn't want to spring for the $8.  (Yes, I said eight dollars per home per year.)

Some, like Barbara Watts and others, didn't want the Village to have dessert before it ate its vegetables.  If we're going to have public art, it should come after we fix the streets and improve the medians.  But since neither Barbara nor anyone else with this philosophy is making the slightest effort to get the streets fixed and the medians improved, it doesn't appear we'd ever get to public art.  Nor fixed streets or improved medians.  They seem to like the Village as skanky (I mean quaint and charming) as possible.

Another interesting angle in the resistance to public art (or at least to contributing to it) is the idea that a given piece is not particularly appealing to a given individual.  This excuse (I mean argument) was offered by a couple of people.  Barbara Watts was a central proponent of the idea that art that doesn't appeal to everyone is unworthy, and she supported her credential to say so by pointing out that she happens to be a professional art historian.  Funny enough, I counted on Barbara's expertise once.  Or I tried to.  Some years ago, when we were trying to form an Art Board, I asked Barbara if she would agree to be on such a Board.  (What an advantage for us to have a professional art historian on the Art Board!)  But she informed me that she would be of no use on such a Board, since her area of expertise is narrowly Fifteenth Century European art.  When we asked the then Commission to approve the first sculpture it eventually acquired, Barbara stood in rage over it, describing it as poor art.  She got this conclusion, she said, from some of her pals at FIU.  So Dr Barbara Watts, professional art historian, is qualified neither to appreciate nor criticize contemporary art, but she wants her personal dislike of a given piece of contemporary art to carry special weight?  How does that work?

And curiously too, Barbara did not join me in advocating for public support of public art in BP.  It was not long ago that she was so militant in demanding public support of public art here that she convinced two of her Commission colleagues-- a majority all together-- to take from the Village coffers money that was never earmarked for public art.  She wanted to use it to pay for a mural, over the unanimous disapproval of her neighbors.  She couldn't care less what the residents of the Park think: she just insists on public financing of public art.  Not any more, all of a sudden, though.  I wonder what happened to her commitment.

The fact is, I expected to have this idea rejected last night.  It's common that new ideas get rejected the first time around.  In the meantime, we will continue to collect donations.  As a frame of reference, there were six donors to the first sculpture the Village acquired.  There were 22 to the second.  At this moment, we're about 2/3 of the way to our goal, and there are about 80 donors.  By the time we finish, at this rate, there will be about 120.  For the sculpture in question, if every homeowner donated, all that would be required would be $5 per home.  We'll get there.  We'll certainly reach the goal for "The Ballplayer," and eventually, we might even reach the $8 per home per year goal.