My Mistake. The Net Metering FPL Problem.

Net metering is a two-way electric meter.  When you buy electricity from the grid (FPL), the meter moves in one direction.  When you sell electricity to the grid, the meter moves in the other direction.

It was my understanding that when FPL buys electricity from someone who has it to sell (like someone who produces his or her own electricity with solar panels), it pays less for the electricity it buys than it charges for the electricity it sells.  This turns out not to be true, for the moment.  For some reason, FPL buys for the same price as it sells.  This would sound like a system whereby FPL couldn't make any money, except for the fact that only a tiny proportion of the population produce electricity to sell to FPL.  FPL make their money on everyone else.  And this arrangement is about to come to an end.

It turns out that one Florida legislator (Senator, if I remember correctly from the radio story I heard today) has introduced legislation that would allow FPL to pay producers only the amount it would have cost FPL to produce the electricity it no longer has to sell to the consumer, because the consumer is producing his or her own electricity.

I have to say that as much as don't like this, because it means I won't be able to continue to pay $10.05 a month, every month of the year, I must admit there's something fair about this proposed/impending new arrangement.  The old/current (excuse the pun) arrangement actually sounds a bit stupid, although it's compensated for by the minimum bill, even if I use zero net monthly electricity.  FPL still has to produce electricity, for me, too, when the sun isn't shining, and it has to have and protect the infrastructure to get it to me.

Of course, the alternate reasoning could well be that I'm already taking care of FPL by producing so much electricity that I'm way behind, and FPL is getting from me plenty of electricity it then sells to someone else.  But still, if it pays me the same amount it then charges someone else, then it's not making the profit it would need.  The Florida Public Service Commission should be monitoring this, to make sure FPL makes the profit it needs, but a fair and not excessive profit, but in a far right wing state like Florida, it's unlikely the PSC makes decisions that are protective and in the interests of consumers.

Also, and remembering the far right political leanings of this state, it's most likely that this move is intended to inhibit consumers from installing solar panels, because once a rule like this takes effect, those solar panels are of significantly less value to the consumer who paid for them.  Or to look at it the other way around, it will take a lot longer to pay yourself back for the cost of the panels.  But still, you do save something, and you do decrease the need to burn non-renewable sources of energy -- you feel more like a solution than like a problem, if feeling like a solution instead of feeling like a problem is your thing.  And those non-renewable sources of energy are going to be depleted and go away at some point anyway (in case you ever wondered why they call them non-renewable).  If you're like an ostrich, and you keep your head buried far enough in the sand, you can try to ignore that reality for a while longer.  Although with water tables rising, you can't keep your head buried too deep.

So, part of the party -- part of my party -- might at some point be over, maybe before too long.  But it won't all be over.  Am I going to have to pay $15-$20 a month, instead of $10 a month?  So what?  It's a lot less than the up to $150 a month I used to pay during the summer months, of which there are around five or six per year here.

"Energy Vampires"

I read an interesting story on my homepage today.  I know about this, but it was a nice compilation.

They were talking about those electric appliances that continue to consume electricity even when they're turned off.  They called them "energy vampires."  It seems like a very apt categorization.

The suggestion was that consumers plug these devices and appliances into energy strips (or unplug them when they're not actively in use), and turn off the energy strip when you're not using whatever it is.  That will stop any electricity from coming to them, which will reduce electricity consumption, and therefore reduce your electric bill.  I've done this with many devices and appliances in my house.  When I need them, I plug them back in, or turn back on the energy strip.

Fish pond equipment is not a practical example, because you can't turn off the pump and aerator when there are fish in the pond.  They suggest you get a high efficiency and energy-saving pump.  And few people have fish ponds anyway.  Some people have indoor aquaria, and you're sort of stuck if you use a heater.  The fish might not survive, if you don't use one.  But they do suggest putting the aquarium in a room that's not cool, and insulating it.  And you can unplug the light when you're not watching the fish.

Almost everyone has a hot water heater.  It keeps the water hot 24 hours a day, and one of the things that allows that to happen is a recirculator.  They suggest putting your recirculator on a timer, so it's not heating and recirculating water let's say in the middle of the night.  I'm not sure how good an idea this is, because it only saves an estimated $28-$93 per year.  However, what you can do, if you don't have many people in the house, is switch from a tank-type water heater to one of those heaters (electric or gas) that doesn't have a reservoir, and heats only when you turn on the hot water.  You can save a significant amount of money that way.

A "set-top box" appears to have something to do with audio-video electronics.  The cost savings per year is only in the range of $16-$57 per year, but a power strip costs less than that, and you only have to buy it once.  That's what I use.  The individual components also use power, even when they're off.  So I plug everything, including the TV, into one power strip.

Did you know you can save $111 per year by unplugging an electric fan when you're not using it, even when you've turned it off?  Most of mine are wired ceiling fans, which use very little power, so I can't do more than turn them off.  But I have one in my garage for when I work out.  That one gets unplugged when I'm not working out, which is almost all the time.

They had one entry called "24/7 lights."  I don't know who burns lights 24/7, but it can cost you anywhere from $4 per year to $104 per year to do it.

It would be a real pain to turn off your computer when you're not using it, and if you don't turn it off, the good news is that it will cost you only $1-$49 per year.

Here's what they say about your modem: it will cost $5-$17 per year to run it (very little), but "unplug your modem before going to bed.  You don't need internet access when you're asleep."  It's very little savings, but the theory is good.

All chargers should be unplugged when you're not charging something.  Not a ton of savings with each one, but they add up.

I don't know anything about video games, but they do say the consoles are "another energy vampire."  You should unplug those consoles, and take your video game out of "instant-on mode if you don't need it."  As I said, I know nothing about this, so I don't know what constitutes needing instant-on mode.

A very big offender is central AC units, but I'm not sure anyone can unplug them down here at any moment during half the year.

An electric clothes dryer costs $.33 an hour to run.  You can't do much about that, unless you want to get a gas dryer, or hang your clothes on a line, to let "god" dry them in "his" spare time.  But you can unplug the dryer when you're not using it (that's what I do), which is almost all the time.

CFL and LED light bulbs cost a lot, but they save a lot, too.

"Your coffee maker requires a lot of energy while in use, so it's best to keep it unplugged while it isn't."  Words to the wise there.

Purists that they are, they also suggest unplugging your microwave (if you can) when you're not using it, because you have a watch or something, so you don't need the microwave on all the time just to know what time it is.

The rest of the stuff mostly applies to up north, or it's small potatoes.

As an aside, my electric bill sank to $10.05 a month sometime in early 2020, and it's never gone higher, even in two summers.  If you can afford to throw some solar panels up there, I highly recommend you do it.

If It Makes Anyone Feel Better, I'll Take Some Responsibility.

In the comments from two posts ago ("Doesn't Know the Word Catercorner? Sheesh!"), Commissioner Art Gonzalez was making a point about waning enforcement on 6th Avenue.  Presumably, he was connecting the problem about which all of us complain -- an increasing frequency of car accidents on that avenue -- to the apparent fact that we're not enforcing the speed limit on that avenue as we did in the past.

Art had seemingly finally gotten the statistics he said he had long been requesting, and he showed us dramatically decreasing enforcement, at least as illustrated by a dramatically decreasing rate of speeding tickets written.  As I said, the vast majority of speeding tickets in BP have always been written on 6th Avenue, but there were vastly fewer of them in the past eight years, according to the statistics Art reprinted.

Art began with 2013, when there was an average of 15 tickets per day written in the Village, crashing (excuse the pun) in 2014 to an average of only five tickets a day, and ending in 2016 and thereafter with an average of only two tickets per day written.

We had a few other changes during those years, especially starting in 2013.  We got a new manager, we got a new Commission (it was elected at the end of 2013), we got new Village entry signs, and those old "Don't Even Think About Speeding" signs were removed.  I'm not sure I know this for a fact, but I have an impression that the "Don't Even Think About Speeding" signs were posted where the newer entry signs are now.  So, it's as if we replaced one kind of "welcome" with another.  We replaced a stern and forbidding "welcome" with a friendly one.

I was elected to the Commission at the end of 2013, and my term ended at the end of 2016.  Because we switched from running our own Village-only elections to piggy-backing onto the general election, all Commission terms were extended for one year.  So my term, which would have been two years, was three years.  Other Commissioners' four year terms became five year terms.  Just that one time, to reset us to the general election schedule.

So, just as enforcement was declining dramatically, and, according to BrambleWitch (and others, I think), accidents were increasing dramatically, I was there, in a position of some authority.  It's true no one brought to my attention the dramatic increase in the frequency of accidents on 6th Avenue, and I didn't know about the dramatic decrease in the frequency of tickets being written there, but I suppose I could have asked for these public records, as Art Gonzalez did.  I wouldn't have known to be looking for anything, but I could just have been blindly curious.

We had not long before all this erected the fancier welcome sign on the corner of 6th Avenue and 113th St, and that was a nice change for us.  We began a very major restoration project at the log cabin, and erection of the new administration building next door.  We outsourced sanitation.  We chose and installed the other welcome signs.  It was not conspicuous to me that we essentially replaced the "Don't Even Think About Speeding" signs with the newer signs.

What was less conspicuous (more subtle) was that we might also have replaced a caution, or a warning, with a pretty picture.

So, I apologize for having failed to recognize what was happening on 6th Avenue, especially if, as it appears, it was happening "on my watch."  I don't know if we were all distracted by other projects, or if the people who knew best -- the Village residents who live on 6th Avenue, especially at the corner of 119th St -- were either not clearly enough communicating what was happening, or simply not being heard, or just not being responded-to.  There were five Commissioners at a time, a manager, a police chief, and several police officers.  And a collection of increasingly apprehensive and imperiled Village residents living on that Avenue, near that corner.  Someone should have picked this up.  We didn't.  We failed.  I didn't pick it up.  I failed.

I'm sorry.  But we get it now.  The drastic proposal appears not to be realistic.  But if all we did was patrol, and enforce, as we used to, and add back the "Don't Even Think About Speeding" signs, it seems there's every reason to expect a good, satisfying, and reassuring result.  So I hope the current Commission and management correct the mistakes of the past eight years.  We'll all appreciate it if they do.

"Can We All Get Along?"

Rodney King is quoted (misquoted, paraphrased) as having said "Can't we all just get along?"  He didn't say that.  He said "Can we get along?  Can we all get along?  For the kids...?"  The misquote is a very small matter, but there's nothing wrong with getting things, especially quotes, right.

Jake Tapper of CNN was interviewing Jon Stewart, who was talking about various things, when Stewart said "I think the media does a terrible job at de-escalation."  I listened to this bit of interview while I was exploring a publication called The Daily Beast, which had run another story about how the mainstream media in a sense brought us the reign of Donald Trump, in part by having suppressed or distorted some comparatively "non-liberal" things some liberals said, or trying to bury reasonable things some conservatives said, and then setting up everyone for the backlash when the "whole truths" came out later.  And the worst part of this backlash, according to The Daily Beast, was the introduced, then amplified, proposal that the "mainstream media" were not to be trusted.

It turns out that this kind of reaction or response from people is very common.  Individuals are limited -- sometimes much more limited than they would be willing to admit -- and they latch onto whatever is presented, and sometimes react with resentment if they find they were misled.  Or they have a vague sense of their limitations, and they react automatically and initially with rejection of what is presented, because they somehow sort of know it's over their heads, or don't want to be "pushed around" by better informed people.  This would be a great place for one of my favorite jokes -- the "keep your f***in' jack" joke -- but it takes too long for the space of a blog post.  The point is that people commonly either adopt or resist, inordinately for the circumstance, and it's not an adaptive way to address things.

Sometimes, though, inordinate, and incorrect, reactions are the goal.  "It doesn't take a rocket scientist" to understand why the media do a terrible job at de-escalation.  They literally make money on escalation.  And that's setting aside if the media outlet in question wants to promote a liberal agenda or a conservative one.  That was The Daily Beast's point.

So, why am I talking about Rodney King, Jon Stewart, The Daily Beast, and one of the best jokes ever?  Because they all refer to the same problem, and we have that problem.  For a collection of reasons, people seem to have a tendency to adopt polarized positions about things, and it's not an adaptive or successful way to solve problems.  It replaces working together with fighting.  And all of the people at any of the extremes are wrong.  If they're not wrong about the substance of their argument, then they're wrong to make adversaries out of people who should be their partners, at least of sorts.

There are probably enough examples, but let's take, again, 6th Avenue.  Some of us conceptualize what amount to drastic changes in 6th Avenue in BP.  I'm relieved to report that no one, to my knowledge, goes to the other extreme, and says there's no problem.  I certainly don't say there's no problem, but in a way, I represent a position that is fairly far from the the other extreme: I say we should only pursue the least changes that I, for one, think will be effective at solving the problem (which I more than agree exists, and which I wholeheartedly want to solve).

But it becomes interesting when someone like BrambleWitch, who started out advocating for the more drastic changes, offers conclusions like "Just to be clear, the State (FDOT) is not going to reduce the lanes on 6th...Some of the local Commissioners seem to think that they can get FDOT to put in stop signs.  In my opinion, that is delusional and would not help anyway."  And when she tells Commissioner Art Gonzalez, who has lived in BP for five years, "I have lived near this corner for 28 years...[and] when we had the attitude about 'don't even think about speeding' this street was a very minor problem.  We probably had less (sic: she means fewer) officers then, it was the intention of CARING."  And she advocates for enhanced enforcement, and presumably to instill again the "Don't Even Think About Speeding" mantra, and the signs to go with it.

What's curious about that kind of movement from BrambleWitch is that it doesn't seem to move others.  We're more devoted to these crusades, and adhering to extreme demands, fruitless though BrambleWitch says they are, than we are to working together, compromising, and getting along (with each other).

And to complicate matters, perhaps, we have to get along with more than each other.  We have to get along with everyone who passes through here.  Most of them use the PUBLIC STREETS that are here, and some of them might like what they see enough to want to come live here with us.  We don't have enemies, except for the mischief-makers, and the people who forget that they're driving through someone else's "home."  That's why we, as is true of more or less all municipalities, spend half our budget on the police.

We have a Village that's hard to support, because of the low tax base, and we have hurricanes, and we have streets that flood, and we have train tracks that are too nearby, and we now have airplanes flying low and directly overhead.  We have problems enough.  We don't need to be problems to each other.  "Can we all get along?"

Doesn't Know the Word Catercorner? Sheesh!

You remember very recently we were talking about accidents on 6th Avenue.  Well, one of our neighbors wrote to me yesterday to tell me there had been two of them on Friday (yesterday), very near his house, and one of them involved four vehicles.

In his e-mail to me, our neighbor specified that one car ran into the fence "catty corner" from him.

I was already aware of one of the accidents, because I saw the debris from it when I was coming home at noon Friday.  (I'm now even more bionic than I was before, having visited CVS to get my coronavirus vaccine booster and a flu shot!)

So then, I told our neighbor that we certainly need much more enforcement on 6th Avenue, and that, by the way, it's catercorner, not catty corner.  So he wrote back to say that where he grew up, they called that kind of relationship among buildings "kitty corner."  (So what's with the "catty corner," which he then wrote was the "only truth?")

Imagine that: he's incorrect about English language usage, and he can't focus on the best solution to our 6th Avenue problem.  If I didn't like this guy so much...  But I did offer to settle the matters with him behind the bleachers after school.  Now that I'm bionic and all.

I wonder if Mario Diaz and Luis Cabrera read this blog.  Nothing else so far appears to have gotten their attention about the 6th Avenue traffic problem.  Maybe I should invite them, too, to meet me behind the bleachers after school.  The three of them against me is more or less an even match-up, if I can get Luis to put down his gun.  It's not completely clear to me how bionic I am.

Who Knew?

This started with Ricky Thai Bistro, and it was a couple of months or so ago.  I was talking to Giuliano, who, with his Thai wife, who is the chef, owns Ricky Thai, and I mentioned that I generally prefer to order vegetarian dishes from his place, because I don't like eating animals that were not humanely/pasture-raised.  Well...  Giuliano told me that in fact, that's precisely the kind of meat he uses.  I told him I had no idea, no one else will, either, some people (like me) would need to know that, and he should make this clear on his menu.  So now, I'm willing to eat meat dishes from Ricky Thai.  (Actually, I already occasionally ordered the Larp appetizer with pork, apparently wrongly thinking I was cheating.  It's a spectacular dish, and better if it's on the spicy side.  If I get it for myself, I can order it as hot as I want.  If I have company, I have to keep it toned down.  It's large enough for more than two people.)

I've become acquainted with Alex, who, with his wife, Laura, owns Vega's Burger Bar less than a block from Ricky Thai Bistro.  Alex is the chef at Vega's Burger.  Vega's Burger, by the way, is also on NE 123rd St, also on the north side of the street (as is Ricky Thai), and it's several store fronts (and a veterinarian front) east of Ricky Thai.  I go to Vega's Burger from time to time, when I want a veggie burger.  That's all I ever get there, and I order it with "seasoned fries" instead of regular French fries.  They're not very seasoned, but they're good.  Anyway, I know the serving crew at Vega's Burger, and they know what I want to order.  But Alex doesn't.  So the day a couple of weeks ago that I went in there, and Alex was sitting out at the bar, instead of being in the kitchen, he asked me if I wanted a hamburger.  I told him no, that I only get veggie burgers, because I don't like eating animals that were not humanely/pasture-raised.  Yup, Alex said that's the kind of meat he buys, from some place up in Palm Beach County.  He wouldn't tell me the place.  It was hard to tell whether he was protecting his source, or he wasn't being...truthful.  It wasn't Gaucho Ranch, which is down here, and he said it wasn't Florida Fresh Beef.  But I decided to believe him, and get a meat hamburger next time.  Which was yesterday.

So, there are two very local places that sell the meat I'm willing to eat, and neither of them proudly and prominently advertises the fact.  They really should.  I told that to both of them.  But if they don't, it's their problem, and maybe their loss, if it prevents people like me from ordering certain dishes.

In my opinion, it's a wonderful thing that fewer animals are being mistreated, and are healthier.  Until that "one bad day."  But I do wonder if there are any other places doing the "right thing," and just not letting their customers know about it.  I tell lots of places to get meat from Pablo at Gaucho Ranch.  I hope they do it.  Florida Fresh Beef is somewhere around Ocala, and the meat tends to be more expensive.  I don't know what Alex at Vega's Burger pays for meat, but the hamburger was good.  It was 10 ounces, with fries and a pickle, for $13.  That's 100% in line with common restaurant prices for a hamburger with fries, and maybe it's even a bit lower than some casual places.

My only complaint about my Vega's Burger order was that it was the "Fireman" hamburger, which supposedly meant it was spicy.  When Alex asked me how spicy I want it, I told him to go for it.  I told him I wanted to be sorry I asked for that much heat.  But all he used was jalapeno peppers, so it wasn't very spicy at all.  I'll make myself clearer, and challenge him a bit, next time.  I always tell people like Alex that I like to eat food that bites back.  He's going to have to step it up.  He and I will talk about what other peppers he can use for someone who wants a "Fireman" hamburger.  If I have to put out a fire, he's going to have to work harder to start one.

"Because We Belong to Each Other."

I took the title of this post from the last line of a story on NPR this morning.  The story was about the efforts of a woman named Priya Parker, whose book is called The Art of Gathering, to figure out how to make gatherings of people, usually at celebrations, deeper and more reflective.  She focused on the idea of constructing topics of toasts made, and how to encourage gatherers to make them more incisive, and appreciative.  She ended her NPR discussion as I said, with the quote that is the title of this post.

And this concept is critically important, and not to be forgotten.  Sometimes, we belong to each other by accident, like the families, or cultures, or societies or countries into which we happened to have been born.  But mostly, we choose our surroundings, and the people in them.

I do a certain amount of couples or marriage counseling, and one theme that is never out of focus is that the people involved chose each other, from among many possible choices.  Sure, they're complaining about each other now (that's why they're seeing me), but however long ago it was, they wanted, and preferred, each other.  The time bomb in these situations is that everyone in the world has neuroses, and every choice contains a conflict.  So, the basis for complaint now actually contains the reason for having chosen the person in the first place.  For example, "So-and-so is so controlling, and ignores my suggestions."  "What attracted you to so-and-so when you met and were getting to know each other?"  "So-and-so is so well-organized and self-assured."  There are loads of examples, but they all distill into personal and internal conflicts like that.

The same can be said for things like where we choose to live.  If we consider, say, Biscayne Park, no one is forced to live here.  We all chose it, and each of us for our reasons.  And as small as is Biscayne Park, each of us chose one part, or one street, or one house, instead of another.  "I'm dissatisfied with my house.  It's too small, or plain, or on too small a lot, or on too busy a street."  "How did you choose that particular house?"  "I could afford it much better than I could a larger, fancier, more up-to-date house, on a bigger lot, and a quieter street or cul-de-sac."  It's the same thing as the relationship complaints and conflicts.

But having made these choices, we commit -- to a place and to each other.  They're not commitments that can't be reconsidered, or changed, or abandoned.  But until we conclude that we've somehow made a mistake, and should save ourselves from it, we do belong to each other, and to the setting or place that contains us.  And our continued belonging is not without the conflicts it contained when we first made the choice.  We just have to remember what we intended to gain from this choice, and what we agreed to sacrifice to make it.

Now, it's fair to say that not every situation in which a choice is made was fully evolved, as it is when we become dissatisfied, when we made the choice.  "S/he wasn't a drug addict when I met her/him, but s/he is now, and I can't live like that."  "Biscayne Park didn't use to be directly under the flight pattern from MIA, but the flight pattern was recently changed, and BP is under it now, and I can't live like that."  Then, you make changes, or you appeal to someone else to make one.

But absent changes like that, we belong to each other, because we chose to belong to each other, for our conflicted reasons, and it's in our interest to find the value in belonging.

To Illustrate the Point of Some of Our Neighbors

I was nearing home from my walk this morning at about 7:45.  On 6th Avenue, there were two cars which had crashed, and two more from people who stopped to help.

The easy car to explain was facing north in the northbound lane at the north part of the 119th St intersection.  It was badly damaged in front, and the driver was standing outside the car, sort of walking around, on her mobile phone, and she had only a superficial laceration -- really just an abrasion -- on her left forearm.  She said she also hit her head, but it wasn't bothering her much, and she seemed generally OK.  While I was there, our officer, Frank Arellano, arrived, and as I was leaving, another cruiser was arriving.

The car that's hard to explain was facing north in the southbound lane of 6th Avenue, several yards north of the other car (had apparently jumped the median, but it must have been in the intersection, because there was no significant piece of landscaping that was destroyed), smashed against a power pole, and with airbag deployed.  That driver was holding her mobile phone, but not using it at the moment I got there, and was physically intact, but definitely "shaken up."

So, here's our problem.  If everyone driving on 6th Avenue goes 30 MPH, or even a little faster, doesn't use a mobile phone while they're driving (or uses voice-activated bluetooth only), and pays attention, we have no problem.  But clearly, there's a breakdown somewhere.  And for the record, neither driver today appeared intoxicated.  The question, then, is what is the solution to our problem.

There's already a speed limit, and that fact, in itself, does not prevent these accidents.  We can wonder what leads drivers not to pay adequate attention to what they're doing, and I will take the liberty to suggest that the overwhelming distractor is the mobile phone.  The last I remember, using a mobile phone while driving can only be a "secondary offense," which means it can only be cited if there's some other reason to pull over a driver.  I would suggest that it needs to be a primary offense, and that if the backward state in which we live can't pull itself together to make it one, then the Village should make it one.  Even if all we did was pull over drivers using mobile phones (which they're holding in one of their hands, so that hand cannot be available for driving, and holding to their ear, so they are disinclined to turn their head to see what else is on the road), and have a safety talk with them -- even if we didn't issue a citation -- this would be very effective at getting the message across: when you get to Biscayne Park, put your phone down, or discontinue your call, because if you don't, Biscayne Park is going to aggravate you, and waste a good deal of your time.

So, maybe it was the phone(s), or maybe it was something else that distracted one or both of these two drivers.  How else can we get their attention, or at least prevent them from driving onto other people's property?  The state can do one or both of two things to help.  One is that it can erect barriers along the side of the road.  The barriers can be no more than break-away metal.  But you hit one of those, and you'll know it.  That will get your attention, and so will the bill for the body work on your car.  If we (the state), want to be a bit more subtle, and a bit more elegant, but still be very effective, while preserving the character of 6th Avenue, it can extend the edges of the pavement about 6-12 inches, and groove that extra pavement.  You drive over that, and the noise and discomfort will get your attention, or awaken you, fast.

The fact is that I don't really know what happened this morning.  Frank Arellano and his partner will figure it out.  Maybe the drivers were drag racing.  Maybe one got mad at the other for who knows what reason, and gave her the finger.  But that kind of thing can't happen often.  It's a short uninterrupted (lights at the bridge at about 112th St on the south and at 123rd St on the north) stretch of 30 MPH road in a quiet neighborhood.  I'm still betting on the mobile phones.

Beatles Vs Stones.

I have a book called Beatles vs Stones, but this post is unrelated to that book.

The post also has nothing to do with Biscayne Park.

This post is about two, or possibly three, or perhaps four, songs.  One is the Stones' song "You Can't Always Get What You Want," (although I could equally well have gone with "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction") and the other is either the Beatles' cover of the Berry Gordy and Janie Bradford song ("Money, (That's What I Want)"), or the Pink Floyd song "Money."  But because the book exists, and I have a copy of it, I thought it would be cuter to call this post "Beatles vs Stones" than to call it Stones and Pink Floyd.  And it's all British Invasion, except for the original of the Beatles cover, which was written by the Motown originator.  Oh, well...

So this started when I got to the Ft Lauderdale airport too early today -- for a small collection of reasons -- and I suddenly, as the Brits would say, came over all peckish.  I needed something to eat, and I wanted decaf coffee to go with it.

I bypassed Jack Nicklaus' restaurant, because it looked too slick, and I went next door to a place which I think was called Heavenly Grounds.  I asked for their (overpriced, of course) "breakfast sandwich," and a large, black decaf.  How a place that has the name Grounds in the title, strongly suggesting that coffee is an important item they sell, doesn't sell decaf -- "not in the airport," for who can possibly imagine what reason -- was completely beyond me.  So I canceled the order, and decided to go to Nicklaus'.

The second piece of bad news -- the first having been that it looked too slick to begin with -- was that I couldn't see the menu by focusing my camera phone on the two-dimensional bar code.  It didn't work.  But a waitress, who may already have known this doesn't really work, came by very quickly with a physical menu, and there were two things I was willing to buy.  One was a shockingly overpriced "breakfast burrito," which cost $13.62, and the other was coffee.   Only one price was listed for the coffee, so I figured they just keep refilling your cup, as normal restaurants do.  So OK, I was hungry enough to eat a $13.62 breakfast burrito, however big that was going to turn out to be, and I ordered that and decaf.  At this point, I was seated at a table, which was more formal than I wanted.

What?!  Again they don't serve decaf?!  So does this mean you can't get decaf at Ft Lauderdale airport?  I need to talk to someone about this.  But by this time, I was about as hungry as I was frustrated, and I decided just to get my overpriced, and probably too large, breakfast burrito.  OK, fine, that and a glass of water.

If they had charged 1/3 the price they did, it might have been a fair price.  Since it was the airport, which is always rip-off city, food-wise, they might have charged 1/2 of what they did.  But that puny little thing, and most certainly not what anyone who's ever eaten one would call a particularly good breakfast burrito, for $13.62?  And up to $17.02, by the time they demand an 18% tip, and tax?

The Stones' song says that you sometimes get what you need.  Not this time.  And Berry Gordy, Janie Bradford, the Beatles, and Pink Floyd sure were right about the focus on taking people's money.

The New Bosses Are Not the Same as the Old Bosses.

A friend and BP resident told me about his experience with leaving out yard waste.  It's not a happy story.

In the old days, with the old contractor, if you left out more than an estimated two cubic yards, someone would take a photograph of your estimated excessive leavings, the refuse would be picked up the next day or so, and you would be billed for the estimated overage.  That is apparently not the new deal.

Now, my friend said, he left out what was estimated to be more than two cubic yards, he received a notice of a $50 fine, and he had to move all the yard waste back behind the house.  No one picked it up, and no one was going to.  Pick up the yard waste, as is the contractor's job, estimate how much more than two cubic yards it was, and the homeowner can argue if he thinks someone overestimated?  Evidently not.  And this is for substantially more money than we were paying about two months ago.

Someone does not have much of a sense of courtesy, or even decency, when dealing with BP residents/homeowners/taxpayers.  We're now paying significantly more money for inferior and punitive, instead of helpful, or even accommodating, service.

"Great Waste," indeed.

PS: I don't know how to check this story without either simply believing that what my friend told me is true (which I do believe), or butting in to someone else's business, which I'm not going to do.  I was just told this story in passing, and I said I would blog about it.  My friend did not ask me to do that, nor did he request that I not do it.  We've fallen far from the WastePro days, and it's costing us a premium to take the bumpy and injurious ride.

PPS: I urged my friend to go talk to Mario Diaz, who I hope will see to it at least that the $50 slap in the face goes away.  This is not $50 to take away the yard waste.  It's not $50 to take away more than the contracted amount of yard waste.  It's a $50 punishment, for nothing, and with no adaptive component.  And if matters could be made any worse, it appears to be our own Village that is punishing us.  Great Waste had no reason to punish anyone.  They just kept driving, and had less work to do.