"Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way." Lee Iacocca

We're on the path to getting our new administrative annex building completed, and our Village Hall renovated.  The former is taking shape, and the latter is about to be under way.  The plans are firm and satisfactory.  The financing appears to be a bit of a moving target.  No one is pleased about that.  But we know where we're going, and it's clear we're going to find our way there.

Could there be anyone who isn't on board at this point?  Evidently there could.  And there is.  Not only are some Village residents sniping at the plans and the planners, but even some former Commission members are launching spitballs.   The importance of this is that we have relied for about 82 years on our log cabin as the seat of Village government.  Most Village employees work there, and our records are there.  If this structure was adequate when the Village had less than 100 homes, and just a few residents, it's unimaginable that it could be adequate now.  But not one Commission before the current one lifted a finger to make, or propose, changes.  It's not even clear anyone ever asked any questions.  Repairs were piecemeal and slipshod, the result in recent years including active leaking when it rained, rats running free in the building, and one toilet that sat on rotten flooring which constantly threatened to give way.

It might be understandable that non-Commission Village residents are skittish about repairs, renovations, and new construction which will strain Village finances for some years to come.  It's not understandable that past and present Commissioners are criticizing, scolding, and catastrophizing.  They had their chances to do something before now.  They chose not to.  They didn't lead when they could have.  They don't want to follow the lead of other more constructive Commissioners now.  Lee Iacocca leaves them one other strategy.

"The Residents Don't Want It."

I have a problem, and a dilemma.  At the Special Commission meeting this past Tuesday, Steve Bernard arose to scold and blame the Commission for pursuing annexation.  And incurring a charge for this pursuit.  He told us that regarding annexation, "the residents don't want it."  Steve's comment should not simply be written off as typical whining and griping and sarcastic sniveling.  Yes, of course it was all of that, but there was something else in what he had to say.  There was that provocative affront: the Commission has acted on an initiative that the residents don't favor.

Let's assume Steve was talking about someone other than himself and a small handful of other BP residents.  Let's assume he was properly referring to a notable number of people.  He likened the complained-of Commission action over the objection of some BP residents regarding annexation to the Commission's action over the objection of residents regarding outsourcing sanitation.  We still have no idea how many people didn't want to outsource sanitation, because those who said they didn't want it were misinformed about what it was they were asked to repudiate.  But let's assume, for purpose of discussion, that a few hundred BP residents don't want to annex anything.

The question is, then, what do these residents want?  Do they want, as some of them say, the Village to operate more efficiently, to free up money that they portray as wasted somewhere in Village finances?  Do they imagine they're talking about enough money to make a meaningful difference?  Over the tenures of the last Village Manager and the present one, the Village has undergone very major trimming and tightening up.  If anyone could find a few more dollars in the budget (and I'm quite sure each of us could), they wouldn't be enough to fix what's broken around here.  They certainly wouldn't improve the medians, or the streets, or the drainage problems, or erect a wall along the track, or rehab the recreation area.  They certainly wouldn't have gotten an administration building built, or the log cabin renovated.

The Village has nothing meaningful to sell (it's mostly building permits and site rentals), so there's no real opportunity to increase revenue there.

We can increase taxes as properties sell, but if the Village is kept in it's sadly modest state, we're not talking about major increase in value.  And the same people who don't want to annex, or didn't want to outsource sanitation, also don't want the Village intruding on homeowners' prerogatives, like by making demands for Code-based property improvement.  Staying as we are depresses us.

Is it possible, then, that those who don't want annexation don't really want anything?  We're run down, in need of repair, and we should stay that way?

Barbara Kuhl talked about the Village she wants to see.  She wants to see, and live in, the "Mercedes Benz" of Villages.  Neither Steve Bernard nor anyone else expressed disagreement with her.  And Barbara added that she would like to see more community commitment, through actual money donation.  She said, mistaking slightly, that it seems to have been easy to raise money for public art.   She and Gary made it easier than it would have been without their contributions, but I wouldn't say it was exactly easy.  It was long, hard, frustrating, door-to-door work that barely got us where we needed to go in terms of raising money.  And some donors gave much more than others, to make up for shortfalls each time.  I don't disagree entirely with Barbara if her point was that we could support ourselves, but I don't think it's likely as successful, and certainly not as easy, as she seems to think,

I do wish Steve, or anyone else who doesn't want to annex, had had more to say about what they do want, and how they want to accomplish it.  I've said before, and I'll say again, I would vote to stop the annexation project in a heartbeat, if someone would only come up with a better and reliable plan.  All I want is to know of a scheme that gets us considerably more income than we have, so we can do what we as an independent municipality should do.  I've heard from more than one person that if we can't do that, we should surrender, pack it in, and give ourselves back to the County, so they can manage us their way.  If we're not self-respecting, and if we're incompetent, we have no business pretending we can exist on our own.

This, here and now, in this blog, is the time to offer something.

(SC)AMAZON

Two people told me about the goings-on with their accounts at Amazon.  Each had been a faithful patron of the site, and neither uses it much (or at all?) any more.  Both stories started with the same troubling observation: prices keep going up, and they change unpredictably.

Here's what appears to be happening, at least as my two informants have put it together.  If you're an avid user of Amazon, and especially if you agree to their special registration deal, they watch you carefully.  They especially like it if you make recurring purchases of something you use regularly.  They are like pigs in, um, mud, if you let them take the liberty to charge you like clockwork every month or two for your recurring purchase.

You discover two things, if you happen to be paying attention.  One is that the price begins to creep up.  You might not notice this, unless you monitor your credit card bill, because the increases are subtle.  But you have been profiled, and you have been taken for granted.  These increases that you might have written off as due to inflation or something are nothing of the kind.  You come to realize this because of the other thing you might discover.  If you happen to go to Amazon from someone else's computer, not the one you normally use, and not from the one which Amazon has come to recognize, you will find that the prices charged to others are lower than the price charged to you.  If you think this represents a flash sale, which is what Amazon would like you to think, it isn't.  Go back to your own computer, and check the price again.  It's higher.  Now go back to your friend's computer, and look again.  Lower.

The fact is, after Amazon gets done having its way with you, and if you haven't gotten so lazy that you don't comparison shop any more (your assumption is, quite naturally, that Amazon has wonderful pricing that doesn't need be checked), you will find that Amazon charges more than other vendors for the things you want to buy from them.  They're counting on your laziness not to figure that out.

Here's another version of this problem.  I know someone else who has gotten himself into the business of selling stuff on Amazon.  He gets new stuff, and he lists it and sells it there, for more, or sometimes much more, than he paid for it retail.  Sometimes, he lists stuff he doesn't even have yet.  He finds things on sale, and he lists them for whatever price he wants.  If someone buys it from him on Amazon, he then goes and buys it from Target, or wherever he found it on sale, and he sends it to his customer.  My first thought was to wonder why anyone would pay him more than they could pay a store for the same item.  Now I know.  They assume Amazon pricing is good, and they don't ask any questions, or bother to comparison shop.  They've been had by Amazon, and the guy I know becomes a beneficiary of this system.  He himself can't explain why his customers overpay him.  But he doesn't know what I now know.

Online shopping is a tricky business.  Registering yourself, and giving credit card information, is only the least subtle risk you take.  Watch out for Amazon.  They didn't become as big and as rich as they are by accident or simple good fortune.

Do You Get What You Pay For?

Lately, there has been an expression of  concern over the idea of paying for a study.  The matter is roads and drainage.  We are to pay about $200K for two work plans.  Some Village residents don't approve, and they don't understand why we should pay for something that has no tangible result.

I have had calls and e-mails expressing concern, or complaint, over this expense, and one of our neighbors, Steve Bernard, has circulated one of his typical e-screeds about it.  The salient complaint is always the same: we should pay for a study, the result of which does not include any work done on the roads?

Funny enough, Steve Bernard happens to be an architect.  As far as I know, that is his one and only profession.  It's the only way, I'm told, he earns a living.  Steve's job is to learn of someone's ambition regarding something they would like to construct, and to apply study and expertise to designing, or imagining, a structure that will fulfill that ambition.  I myself am not an architect, and I have no idea what goes into the production of such a plan.  When I was a member of the Planning and Zoning Board, I saw some architectural plans, and I could see what they're about.  They're just pieces of drafting paper with drawings on them, representing the outlines, or schematic diagrams, of what the imagined building would look like.  And despite the fact that the architect does not do any actual construction, you still have to pay the architect, after which you have to pay the builder who does the "real work."

Since architects make a living, but they don't actually build anything, I'm guessing their clients are asked to pay the architects only for advice and drawings.  I imagine the fee depends on the scope of the intended work.  Maybe it depends on the skill or repute of the architect.  But one way or another, the client of an architect will pay money and walk away with no more construction than there was to begin with.  Whatever was paid will not get one concrete block set.  Is that strange?  Is architecture an odd business?  Should people who are asked to pay an architect for nothing but a scheme be up in arms?

I myself am a doctor.  I'm not a surgeon.  I just listen to someone's complaint, and I advise them what they should do about it.  I charge for that service.  And they don't have to take my advice.  But they do have to pay for it.  Should patients insist upon a free initial consultation, and only pay for services they agree to receive?  In fact, should they only pay if they think they benefited?

We in the Village have paid for studies before.  We've paid for traffic studies, and some of us have relied on the results of those studies.  We've used them as reasons to make statutory changes, as in the speed limit.  But the studies themselves represented only observation and measurement of traffic patterns, and sometimes advice about adjustments that could be made.  The studies didn't do or change anything.  They just gave us information.  That's what the current proposed studies are intended to do.  They're like a traffic study, or a doctor's advice, or an architect's drawing.  They just provide vital information we could not get any other way, and we need that information in order to make the tangible, substantive changes.

Conclusion…

UPDATE: Proposed Storm Water and Road Assessment Fees- part 3

This will conclude our discussion on the proposed storm water and road repair assessment fees. As mentioned in part 1, I hope that this has brought about some additional clarity and a better understanding of the proposal. I would now like to extent my thanks to all of our residents that chose to participate. As of the time of this writing, these articles have been viewed 331 times and there have been 34 comments. So, the coverage of this has been far greater than I, or anyone else could have accomplished by word of mouth alone.

As with any discussion, the core topic got expanded upon to include other philosophies. The purpose of this conclusion is to circle back to the main subject and analyze what we have discovered.

The Genesis of the Idea:

During the Waste Pro workshops held last year, our Manager presented several (4, if I remember correctly) options as to our future sanitation fee structure. One of these options was to take the saving gained from outsourcing and funnel those saving directly into a fund for road and storm water repairs/improvements. This was presented simultaneously with the outsourcing discussion.

The Selection Process:

On February 4, 2014, the Village advertised a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) 2013-05 for Civil Engineering Professional Services. An evaluation committee met on August 1, 2014, and ranked the 8 proposals submitted. Of the 8 proposals for civil engineering services, Craig A. Smith & Associates (C.A.S.) ranked the highest. The Village previously engaged with C.A.S. to oversee the storm water and road repair project at 907/909 NE 111th Street and NE 111th Street between 111th Street and 113th Street.

 

Most pertinent to this discussion, “Staff is requesting authorization to have C.A.S. oversee all future professional services related to storm water and roadway improvements in the Village.” 

The Master Plan Proposal:

 

During my meeting with our Village Manager, she showed me the original proposal from Craig A. Smith (C.A.S.) for both surveys that totaled approx. $277,000.00. After some negotiations, the current fee for services is $200,000.00 net (there are $6,182.00 in fees that also apply (gross) somewhere else- I didn’t make note as to where they go.) Total revenue collected: Storm water survey fee= $100,770.00 - road repair survey fee=$ 105,412.00.  Total= $ 206,182.00. The amount to be levied against each parcel is: $93.40 for storm water, and $97.69 for roads.   

The Next Step: 

We received a Notice of Public Hearing in the mail that was dated April 15, 2015.  This stated that on the next regular Village Commission meeting on May 5^th, 2015, those two resolutions (2015-23 / 2015-24) would be heard with the intent to establish the assessment fee(s) for both the storm water repair/improvement and the road repair/improvements beginning on October 1, 2015.  

There was a discussion on this during the April Commission meeting. This was prior to the Notice of Public Hearing being mailed out to us and comments from residents were few.  

My Involvement and the Reasons Behind It: 

As I have already stated, my first reaction was that these plan fees were exorbitant based on our small size of 1079 parcels… homes.  And after all of the research that I have complied, I still do. However, I wanted to attempt to remain as objective as possible and went to work for more answers and details. 

During my meeting with our Manager, I asked if there was a way to reduce the scope of the survey to reduce the cost, in that some of the fee tiers seemed unnecessary - I asked if there was some “minimum standard required” by the State in order to qualify for funding - I asked for comparable plans from other similar municipalities (if there are any) to compare costs-  I even asked if we could “wink and nod” as to having the plan and then pay for it out of the grants if successful. (Probably my most unethical question) but hey, I was looking under every rock here. 

Conclusion: 

In researching this subject and in my discussions with our residents (those who chose to participate) the overall sense I got was that there is resistance to gamble (as some have referred to it) $206,182.00 for just surveys with no guarantee of State funding. Remember, these assessment fees do not include any actual work, just the cost for the plans. And there are several circumstances where we may have to amend or update these plans at an additional cost. How much more then? I didn’t get an answer.   

I was able to come up with, off the top of my head, a number of reasons why this proposed strategy could be unproductive, resulting in a loss of our money. There are clear and present pratfalls to this proposed assessment design. Actually, in my opinion, there are more reasons why this idea could fail… than in it succeeding.  

 

Milton Hunter

Biscayne Park Resident

 

Got Answers… Got More Questions

UPDATE: Proposed Storm Water and Road Assessment Fee- part 2

I wanted to provide a follow up to my previous post on the subject from earlier in the week. Since then, several Commissioners’ and our Village Manager were kind enough to have reached out to offer a further explanation of this proposed assessment. At this point, I want to thank them all for their time and assistance in helping me to (somewhat) get my mind wrapped around this idea.

Let’s first start with answers to the questions posed in Part 1: (answers are in red from Heidi)

1) Is this a one-time assessment or one that will repeat annually?- It is set-up to repeat (with an amount being determined each year) – but ideally the storm water master plan will position us to competitively go after state and other funding for the actual work.    It is very difficult to get funding for studies and easier to get money for actual work – but they want to see the plan before they fund this. This has been our experience the past couple years in Tallahassee as funding has gotten more competitive.   

2) If so, for how many years? - Until the work plan is complete.

3) What is the cost of this master plan? – Storm water -- $97,750   Roads -- $102,250 – shared equally by every property owner. (Ouch!)  There are no admistrative fees in the Assessments.

4) Are there any guarantees that, after paying the cost of "the plan," we will receive money from the State for these repairs? - No

 

5) And if so, how much more than the master plan fee already paid? - I am not sure I understand question #5. Aside- this was a poorly crafted question on my part. My enquiry was the amount of money (above the cost of the master plan) that we could consider to receive. In other words, is it a 1:1 matching amount -or- would the State offer money (if accepted) to fund most of, if not the entire project without a financial match from us. End aside-
I feel this point was important due to what I project as the cost of these two improvements.

Part 2

What I gathered from our Village Manager is that the State may be in a position to fund most of this… again, if approved. Specifically with the storm water section. However, there is no guarantee to anything other than us absorbing the cost of the plan(s) through the assessment.

I then questioned about the quote from Craig A. Smith:

Did it go out to bid? - No.

The bid was prepared by the Village Engineer who was procured through competitive bidding (previously) 

The Village has an existing relationship with this firm and feels that it is a competitive quote. It has already been reduced by some $77K

Please see the linked resolution approving Craig A. Smith and associates and the process in which we engaged with them.   The Staff report even mentions further storm water and roadway projects.

http://www.biscayneparkfl.gov/vertical/sites/%7BD1E17BCD-1E01-4F7D-84CD-7CACF5F8DDEE%7D/uploads/Agenda_Item_7.f_Regular_Commission_Meeting_02_04_2014.pdf

 

 Is there a possibility of striping down the assessment features in order to reduce the cost? – Looks like a no go

Is there a minimum requirement (on the plan) that the State would approve? Meaning less than what was submitted? - Also looks like a no go (You see where I'm going with this and I'm striking out hard here)

How long does the Master Plan last? Does it need/have to be renewed or amended over time and if so, at what cost? 

No answer… yet/ Update from the Engineer:

In municipalities such as Biscayne Park where you are built out and there is little to no commercial and industrial properties then it should be updated every 15-20 years.
 

Who would know the climate in Tallassee as to forecasting future money availability? In other words, are they expecting a tightening, loosening or to remain as is? – Working on this now

 Lastly, how did we arrive at the per household assessment amount? – Formula = the total cost of the plan(s) ($200,000) divided equally among the number of households [1079]

So neighbors, there we have it. In truth, I am still having difficulty in swallowing the $200,000 cost for the plans. I think for our size community it is exorbitant! But hey, then again, I am not an engineer.

There remain potential pratfalls to this proposed assessment. There is no way to mitigate this fact. However, if enacted, it would provide a real solution to these issues as opposed to slapping a band aid on it as we’ve so often… perhaps too often gotten away with in the past.

Let me know what you think.

Milton Hunter

Biscayne Park Resident

 

Proposed Storm Water and Road Assesment Fee

Over the weekend I received a Notice of Public Hearing regarding a potential new assessment for both storm water and road repair fees. It explained that effective October 1, 2015, the Village intends to charge each property $200.00- raising a total of slightly over $200,000 (for simplicity, I will round up the numbers used for explanation). The description offered was, and I quote, "The purpose of the assessment is to pay the cost of the master plan and estimate costs of repairs and improvements related to storm water/ road repairs and improvements."  

The purpose of this post today is hopefully meant to engage our readers here on the subject and to stimulate conversation. I attended the Commission meeting, and most of them, in which this was briefly discussed. However, I still have questions that have not yet been answered. Here are the first couple that comes to mind: 

1) Is this a one-time assessment or one that will repeat annually?

2) If so, for how many years?

3) What is the cost of this "master plan?"

4) Are there any guarantees that, after paying the cost of "the plan," we will receive more money from the State for these repairs?

5) And if so, how much more than the master plan fee already paid?

 

Let me now take a step back to mention that I may be missing the point here in that I haven't researched this subject in great detail. I assume that others reading here may be in the same position. What I did not see in the Notice nor hear from the Commissions explanation was the "master vision" behind this potential assessment. What will we, the taxpayers be seeing /getting for our money spent? Will it be tangible improvements or just the cost of some master plan? 

As far as the storm water issue, I don't think we need to spend a lot of money on some plan to learn that we need to both clean and maintain our drainage systems regularly. Do you? This seems to be a common sense issue.

 

Yesterday, I was driving through North Miami and into Biscayne Park just after the heavy rains during the early afternoon. The heavy rains, something we haven't seen for weeks, were most welcomed and needed...but let's stay on point here.  In driving through North Miami I noticed that they have a real problem with street flooding. I was glad that I have a higher than normal ground clearance on my car!

Once I got into Biscayne Park, I made an extra effort (thinking about this proposed assessment) to drive and look up and down our streets and took the "long way home" (if such a thing can be said for our small community). What I saw were standing puddles, but it was a major difference from the small "no wake lakes” I drove through in North Miami. Now, did I drive up and down every street… the answer is no.

As for the road repair fees, again what is the master plan? Are we to get, from our assessment, brand new roads with a fresh black topcoat? Or, are we to pay $105K for repairing pot holes?

In my opinion, part of the problem with government, both large and small, is that they tend to sprawl, often beyond their means with the taxpayer always relied upon to pick up the tab. In large government, banks have been deregulated to the extend that they have become leveraged casinos that required a taxpayer "bail-out” when their bets didn't pay off. In Europe, situations are ever more dire. They have crossed the line of trust by "bailing- in" bank depositors (by a certain amount of their savings) when their banks required capital. When or where does it end?

We have a sky high millage rate will little, really no tanigible room for further increases. We've already played that hand over the years. I get that. I do find it nessessary to mention, for balance, that we did realize some saving with the choice to outsource our sanitation service. And that tax relief was welcomed… though it looks now as if it may have been short lived.  

Personally, I would like to see and hear from our Commission and staff, new innovations and efficiencies discussed towards smaller government. And over time, that some of those saving be returned to our taxpayers through a lower millage rate.

To circle back to an earlier comment, I will admit that indeed I may be missing the point here. But, I do think it is important to understand what plans and concepts our leadership has in proposing new assessments or taxes that touches all of us.

Milton Hunter

Biscayne Park Resident

Mandolin Aegean Greek Bistro. I Should Have Gone to Mykonos. (Mykonos The Restaurant, Not Mykonos the Island.)

When I want a Greek meal, I usually go to Mykonos on Coral Way, but I was thinking about maybe something different.  Maria's is further down the street on Coral Way, but I was there once, and I can't remember that I thought it was better than Mykonos.  Maroosh in Coral Gables was a contender.  There's a place on Miami Beach, but I don't like going to (South) Miami Beach.  BarMeli is not open on Sundays.  So the winner was Mandolin.  It's very convenient (43rd and NE 2nd Avenue), the Yelps were very positive, and the price was reasonable.  This seemed like a good place to come to know, for future Greek jonesings.

Mandolin is crowded.  And it's noisy.  But everyone seemed to be having a good time, and whoever was responsible for those Yelp recommendations was either there again, or they'd be back soon.  The offer was a table at the top of the outdoor patio-- a table that seemed like a throne, compared to the rest of the tables on the patio-- or a table inside.  The choice was for dining al fresco.

A restaurant that crowded couldn't have had highly attentive service, and it wasn't.  I'd say adequate.  The menu is spare.  Spanakopita was not on it for dinner, and the server explained they serve them only for lunch.  Some of the usual appetizers were there, and so were some salads.  My companion and I were eating vegetarian, and not one entree qualified.  So we chose two appetizers and two salads.  The wines, by the way, were standard and too expensive.  We passed on a bottle.

The Turkish sampler was essentially uninspired.  It included hummus, shredded beets, and a melange of tomatoes and walnuts.  It was all too salty.  My companion says the stuffed zucchini was the best dish we got.  I suspect she thinks that, because it was she who picked it out.  It was so-so at best, and the tomato sauce at the base of it was simply not good.  The bulghar salad was adequately good, but it was $14, and it was neither good enough nor ample enough to have been worth it.  The Greek salad was $14, too, and it, too, was smaller than expected.  As my companion correctly pointed out, it had a monolithic slab of feta on top, and it didn't look like anyone took any particular interest or care in throwing it together.

I had sung the praises of Mykonos (restaurant), and my companion asked me if Mykonos was better.  Much.  Vastly.  Less money for more and better food.  If I had wanted to spend as much money as I did at Mandolin, I would have been far better off at BarMeli, had they been open.  The service is better anywhere else, too.

I'm No Longer Sure Why I Bother

Noah Jacobs seems to take offense.  Someone sent to me a recent facebook whine of his, in which he complains of my reference to him in the blog post that precedes this one.

Noah was not a central figure in that post.  He got one passing mention, because he was part of a Commission majority that made a faulty decision.  But it appears that in his search for relevance, he wants to interpret this passing mention as a focus on himself.

Noah's wish to be about something, and somehow centrally worth talking about, is his problem.  What is curious is what he does with this ambition and contrived self-image.  His complaint was about my mentioning his name in this blog.  So did he write to me about it?  No.  Did he post a comment about it, or even accept my repeated invitations to write his own blog post?  No.  Instead, he reaches out, I suppose, to his facebook readers (I'm assuming he has some), and he whines to them.

But what's his point?  Where does he think he's going with this, or where does he think it's taking him?  There is no discussion or debate, unless his (imagined?) facebook readers respond to him.  He's complaining about me, but he takes the trouble to try to reassure himself that I won't find out about it.  Am I missing something, or is this empty, and lacking in courage and conviction?

I have said repeatedly, and I will say again, that this blog is a public space.  Anyone is more than welcome to read what's here, and anyone can comment.  Anyone can be an "author" and produce his own views of anything.  The blog is supposed to be about BP, and it is expected that BP will be the central topic.  But even that is not required or essential.  Noah is invited-- I have very specifically and personally invited him several times-- to participate here.  Noah lives in BP, he was briefly an elected official, and it might be imagined that he has some interest in the place.  So why does he skulk around, spewing his half-cocked and distorted views, in a place where only a selected few can see them?

I myself have been singled out for criticism by the Biscayne Times in the past.  When that has happened, I have written a rebuttal, and sent it to the Biscayne Times.  The fact is, if they have trashed me to their readers, I would like my rebuttal to be read by their readers.  What good would it have done me to have complained only to my closest friends?  And the Biscayne Times can choose, and has chosen on numerous occasions, not to publish my rebuttal.  That has struck me as disturbingly unfair.  That can never happen in this blog.  I don't control what's here.  I wouldn't.  If Noah Jacobs, or anyone, feels confronted, or affronted, in this blog, then this blog is the very best place to offer a defense, or even a counteroffensive.  Noah criticized me.  Perhaps I deserved it.  Frankly, because I am not on facebook, and Noah did not reach out to me, I didn't read what he wrote.  I skimmed it, because someone sent it to me, but I concluded it was not for me, so I ignored most of it.  If Noah has something to say, in his own defense or at my expense, this blog is the place to say it.

Come on, Noah, go for it.  Give me the best you have.  If I still disagree, or I still think you're wrong, I'll let you know.  Oh, that's why Noah doesn't write his stuff here.  Right, he did tell me that.  He likes to control the information and how it's presented.  No, Noah is right.  This is not the place for him.

"The Elephant in the Room"

In the Commission meeting last night, there was a presentation from our annexation strategist/lobbyist, Becker Poliakoff.  Their representative let us know what has been accomplished, and where we are still lacking.  We have now done what we can, and we are in the unenviable position of doing battle with the City of North Miami over who has the better case to annex the area in question.  Becker Poliakoff are working on how to stop the annexation train that CNM is trying to guide through the County Commission.

Becker Poliakoff have tried pleading and cajoling, all to no avail, and they are now trying to represent us "from a position of strength," not one of weakness.  They have threatened CNM that if it does not relinquish to us the area in question, they will object to other and even unrelated CNM acquisition/annexation targets.

In questioning the Becker Poliakoff representative, Barbara Watts demanded attention to "the elephant in the room."  Specifically, she wanted to know what was told to residents of the annexation target, to induce them to sign a petition approving their being annexed, and she wanted to know why "we" were objecting to unrelated ambitions on the part of CNM.  These elements of what she seemed to interpret as mischief were what she saw as the "elephants in the room" regarding our scheming and maneuvering.

The "elephant in the room" is really this: the last BP Commission, the one that included Mayor Jacobs and Commissioners Watts and Cooper, chose not to apply to annex the tract in question.  At a time that there was no other applicant, and there were no residents.  When the tract seemed to be ours for the taking, and every expert and knowledgeable advisor urged us to annex, these three BP elected officials chose to drop the ball.  They demonstrated complete lack of vision, ambition, courage, and even common sense, and they did not mark our place by submitting an application.

In our dealings with CNM over this annexation effort, CNM have held firm in refusing to back away from this tract.  And they have had one and only one argument, one trump card, one song to sing: "we applied first."  They are absolutely right.  The majority of the last BP Commission allowed CNM to put forth the first application, and thereby gain what CNM, at least, think is an important, if not dispositive, upper hand.

That was the "elephant in the room."  Barbara Watts, who was casting about looking for someone to blame, someone whose methods could be impugned, was a central figure in causing unspeakable trouble and extra expense for the Village.  She did not have the decency to admit her own blameworthiness, and certainly not to apologize for her poor judgement and failed representation of BP.