If you haven't heard Noah Jacobs make this statement often enough, then you don't come to Commission meetings. It's one of his favorite themes, and he occasionally adheres to it, if it's convenient for his aims of the moment.
Not last night, though. This was one of those we're-in-a-super-hurry-and-we-don't-have-time-for-proper-protocol situations. Here's the set-up:
We're getting ready to hire a new manager. We had seven candidates, and last night the number was whittled to four. They will be interviewed by the Commission en banc at the November 6 meeting, and a decision will be announced on November 14. So just under a month from now, we will have a new manager. We could have been a bit more expeditious, but Noah, Barbara Watts, and Bryan Cooper wanted to take it slow. They wanted time, lots of time, to ask around for advice, or direction, from some of their friends, or neighbors, or advisors. They weren't confident of their own thinking in this matter, despite the fact that they as Commissioners have more information than anyone else. Whom do you ask, when you have more information than anyone else, and the decision rests with you?
At the same time, it seems we got a call from the City of North Miami, who apparently are eager to agree on a water contract with us. They supply our water, and it seems both we and they have lost whatever contract ever existed in the past. John Hearn, our attorney, heard from their attorney, and someone wants to settle this matter.
Well, it appears the CNM attorney wasn't just sitting around thinking about that old missing water contract and what a good idea it would be to make a new one. It seems someone called CNM to suggest a contract. That someone was Noah Jacobs.
If you're thinking what I was thinking, you're wrong. I was thinking that if we have an opportunity to sign a contract as important and long-lasting as a water contract, and if we're about to hire a new manager, wouldn't this be the perfect project for the new manager? Shouldn't we, and wouldn't it be proper for us to, hold off the contract negotiation until the new manager is hired? Just because this makes sense, and just because it happens to be obvious, just because it might be better to do this right than to do it quickly, doesn't mean it's the best idea. There might be something you overlooked. I'll tell you what it is.
Noah Jacobs' term in office is about to end. He has threatened in the past to run for re-election, and he picked up an election packet yesterday. Noah has accomplished nothing, and he has been a huge drain on the Village, its functioning, and its finances. Noah is not remotely competent to hold office as a Commissioner, and the fact that he and two of his pals elected him Mayor is a sick joke. But Noah has adopted a crusade or two along the way. Nothing meaningful, but something to think about when he looks in the mirror. One of those crusades was about our water. He likes to portray the water as foul and its delivery as flawed. He's made lots of noise about the water, and CNM actually replaced some pipes in the southern end of the Village, to try to increase pressure. The new pipes were faulty, and they were never connected, but Noah thinks he accomplished something. Now, he's in a huge hurry to have something else, anything else, to say for himself. Like let's say a new water contract with CNM. But since the BP election is around the corner, Noah doesn't have time to wait for a manager to research the matter, participate in contract negotiations, or handle it him- or herself. Of course that's what a manager is for, but Noah doesn't have time for that kind of nonsense. He wants a new contract signed, quickly, so he can allege that he accomplished something.
And that's why it's sometimes more important to do something quickly than to do it right.
Friday, October 18, 2013
Thursday, October 17, 2013
"For the Best We Can Be"
I like it. Two of my friends suggested it as a campaign slogan, and I think I'll use it. As of today, I'm officially declared as a candidate for Village Commission. Campaigning is from now until voting day, December 3, so please vote for me.
If you don't want to vote for me, then vote for someone else. Just vote. It's the last time the Village will make voting as inconvenient as possible for us, and from now on, after this December, we will have our Village election during the general election.
Here's my platform: I'm pointing out that I have lived in the Park since 2005, and that I have been active, having been a past or present member of Planning and Zoning, Code Review, and now the Foundation, of which I am the President. I'm suggesting that our biggest issue, unfortunately, is the survival of the Village as an independent municipality. We've gone beyond wanting simply to be successful; now it's a basic matter of survival. I'm happy to report that I'm not the only one who knows this. Roxy Ross and Bob Anderson know it, Bryan Cooper only gives us 10 years to live (though this does not appear to be a problem to him), and Noah Jacobs has been able to figure out that we need money. He hasn't made clear what he thinks we need it for, but at least he detects some kind of problem. Steve Bernard has occasionally advocated for higher ad valorem taxes, though he opposes other taxes, so I'm guessing he, too, has begun to figure out that there's a problem. I'm advocating strongly here, though. We're in deep trouble, and I want us to do something about it.
I have specific goals, too. First, we need a reserve. This is critical. We are unprepared for any eventuality at all, and in time, our ability to experience increased revenue from ad valorem tax increases will be outstripped by the increases in costs of things. The way we're fighting this battle is a losing strategy.
After the reserve, we need essential improvements if it's our goal to be other than run down. We need median development, we need renovations to the Village Hall/log cabin and police headquarters, we need street repairs, and there is the possibility that it would help us to increase outdoor lighting. In my opinion, we should also plan to erect a barrier the length of our eastern border between us and the train track. This will provide comfort and relief from noise pollution, and it will reduce crime, vandalism, and mischief.
We also need to kill two birds with one stone: we need a turnover on the present Commission, to reduce discord and dead weight, and to have Commissioners with vision and positive regard for the Village. Two of the problematic Commissioners, Cooper and Jacobs, are ending their terms, and we need them both replaced.
If you've been making an attempt to read between the lines, an important thing we need is money. In this neighborhood, assuming we like the neighborhood as it is (otherwise, why would any of us have chosen to live here?), there are two stable ways we can get money. One is by raising our taxes, and the other is by annexation of a revenue-rich area. As for our taxes, some will say, and complain, that BP ad valorem taxes are the highest in the county. True, and there's a reason for that. We don't have commercial pockets to pick, as almost all other municipalities do, and our properties are comparatively modest in market price. Golden Beach doesn't have commercial properties, either, but the house values are so dramatically high that they can glean lots of ad valorem revenue without charging the millage we do. So if we want to live here, we have to pay for it. It's value for money spent. We have also, by the way, chosen to have a remarkable and award-winning police force that has resulted in a remarkably low crime rate, and an unspeakably high rate of "clearance" (identification and arrest of those responsible for crimes). We don't have to choose that level of police activity and effectiveness, and if we're willing to diminish protection, so we're no better than anyone else, then we can save money.
If we don't want to pay higher taxes, and some people don't, then we have to annex the area east of us across the train track. Either mechanism will do, and both are better than either one alone. The problem we have, which is why we need the turnover I suggested in the Commission, is those people who don't want tax increases, and they don't want to annex. They want to consign us to death as a municipality. That's not OK with me. I didn't choose to live here for that.
So I hope you'll vote for me for Commission in December. I think I can help. I'm not in a position to promote anyone else right now, since no one else has yet declared. When they do, I'll let you know, and I'll tell you which ones, other than myself, I like for Commission.
Please feel free to contact me about my campaign and about my platform. I want to serve you on the Commission, and I don't mind starting now.
If you don't want to vote for me, then vote for someone else. Just vote. It's the last time the Village will make voting as inconvenient as possible for us, and from now on, after this December, we will have our Village election during the general election.
Here's my platform: I'm pointing out that I have lived in the Park since 2005, and that I have been active, having been a past or present member of Planning and Zoning, Code Review, and now the Foundation, of which I am the President. I'm suggesting that our biggest issue, unfortunately, is the survival of the Village as an independent municipality. We've gone beyond wanting simply to be successful; now it's a basic matter of survival. I'm happy to report that I'm not the only one who knows this. Roxy Ross and Bob Anderson know it, Bryan Cooper only gives us 10 years to live (though this does not appear to be a problem to him), and Noah Jacobs has been able to figure out that we need money. He hasn't made clear what he thinks we need it for, but at least he detects some kind of problem. Steve Bernard has occasionally advocated for higher ad valorem taxes, though he opposes other taxes, so I'm guessing he, too, has begun to figure out that there's a problem. I'm advocating strongly here, though. We're in deep trouble, and I want us to do something about it.
I have specific goals, too. First, we need a reserve. This is critical. We are unprepared for any eventuality at all, and in time, our ability to experience increased revenue from ad valorem tax increases will be outstripped by the increases in costs of things. The way we're fighting this battle is a losing strategy.
After the reserve, we need essential improvements if it's our goal to be other than run down. We need median development, we need renovations to the Village Hall/log cabin and police headquarters, we need street repairs, and there is the possibility that it would help us to increase outdoor lighting. In my opinion, we should also plan to erect a barrier the length of our eastern border between us and the train track. This will provide comfort and relief from noise pollution, and it will reduce crime, vandalism, and mischief.
We also need to kill two birds with one stone: we need a turnover on the present Commission, to reduce discord and dead weight, and to have Commissioners with vision and positive regard for the Village. Two of the problematic Commissioners, Cooper and Jacobs, are ending their terms, and we need them both replaced.
If you've been making an attempt to read between the lines, an important thing we need is money. In this neighborhood, assuming we like the neighborhood as it is (otherwise, why would any of us have chosen to live here?), there are two stable ways we can get money. One is by raising our taxes, and the other is by annexation of a revenue-rich area. As for our taxes, some will say, and complain, that BP ad valorem taxes are the highest in the county. True, and there's a reason for that. We don't have commercial pockets to pick, as almost all other municipalities do, and our properties are comparatively modest in market price. Golden Beach doesn't have commercial properties, either, but the house values are so dramatically high that they can glean lots of ad valorem revenue without charging the millage we do. So if we want to live here, we have to pay for it. It's value for money spent. We have also, by the way, chosen to have a remarkable and award-winning police force that has resulted in a remarkably low crime rate, and an unspeakably high rate of "clearance" (identification and arrest of those responsible for crimes). We don't have to choose that level of police activity and effectiveness, and if we're willing to diminish protection, so we're no better than anyone else, then we can save money.
If we don't want to pay higher taxes, and some people don't, then we have to annex the area east of us across the train track. Either mechanism will do, and both are better than either one alone. The problem we have, which is why we need the turnover I suggested in the Commission, is those people who don't want tax increases, and they don't want to annex. They want to consign us to death as a municipality. That's not OK with me. I didn't choose to live here for that.
So I hope you'll vote for me for Commission in December. I think I can help. I'm not in a position to promote anyone else right now, since no one else has yet declared. When they do, I'll let you know, and I'll tell you which ones, other than myself, I like for Commission.
Please feel free to contact me about my campaign and about my platform. I want to serve you on the Commission, and I don't mind starting now.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
One Shutdown Appears to be Over
Let's say, merely for purpose of discussion, that a minority faction of one political party decided to try to overpower the whole country. In the most self-centered and infantile way, it had a group temper tantrum, threatening the rest of Congress and the rest of its party, that it would sabotage the country if it didn't get its way. It was apparently willing to allow the country to cease functioning and even to suffer serious damage to its fiscal viability and power and reputation in the world at large. This was all over resentment that it didn't get its way on one issue: the Affordable Care Act. Even members of this same party felt this tactic was outrageous and inordinate, and that Congresspeople had to grow up and accept the larger consensus, and reality. It took some real muscle from the grownups in Congress to bring this stalemate to an end. But everyone had had enough, and the shutdown has been ended.
Not a subtle analogy, right? And it is truly what we have been facing, and continue to face, in Biscayne Park. A small group of immature neighbors who simply want their way about self-serving issues, or sometimes no identifiable issues, have been holding the Village hostage, and they are apparently prepared to have the Village fail as a punishment for its disrespect of them. They have succeeded in preventing the Village from raising funds everyone, except one Commissioner (Watts), agrees it needs for its survival. They have blocked every viable avenue of support for the Village. One of them has announced the eventual death of the Village, in 10 years, and he refuses to lift a finger to prevent it. In a telephone and e-mail conversation I had with one of our manager candidates, this man, who has a whole career of experience, says he disagrees we have 10 years to live. He thinks it's more like five years. I imagine he has told that to the five Commissioners who have interviewed him. Or who should have interviewed him by now. Commissioners have to whittle the field to three by Thursday night, though this may depend on whether they have gotten the guidance they said they needed from someone or other.
So the country dodged a bullet over the federal "fiscal cliff." It's a little less clear the Village will dodge a bullet. The majority of the current Commission-- Jacobs, Cooper, and Watts-- have us squarely in their sights, and they have already set in motion the mechanism of destruction. There is a possibility that at least some of that can be reversed if we act quickly and decisively, but it's critical to end the stranglehold this majority has on the Village. Whether Cooper is right that we have 10 years to live, or Lee Evett is right that it's closer to five, we must develop an adequate revenue stream, and we have to begin to do it soon. The Commission majority has hog-tied our ability to raise revenue from ad valorem property tax for another year. So we'll hope for no surprise expenses or crises in this coming year. The same majority has done its best to prevent the possibility of annexing other territory, or even exploring the idea, but we may have another chance, if it doesn't get too late fast.
The Cooper and Jacobs Commission seats expire in December. It's critical that we displace one or both of them. Neither of them has brought anything to the table, so it's no loss to us if we vote them both out. It's a big loss to us if we don't.
Not a subtle analogy, right? And it is truly what we have been facing, and continue to face, in Biscayne Park. A small group of immature neighbors who simply want their way about self-serving issues, or sometimes no identifiable issues, have been holding the Village hostage, and they are apparently prepared to have the Village fail as a punishment for its disrespect of them. They have succeeded in preventing the Village from raising funds everyone, except one Commissioner (Watts), agrees it needs for its survival. They have blocked every viable avenue of support for the Village. One of them has announced the eventual death of the Village, in 10 years, and he refuses to lift a finger to prevent it. In a telephone and e-mail conversation I had with one of our manager candidates, this man, who has a whole career of experience, says he disagrees we have 10 years to live. He thinks it's more like five years. I imagine he has told that to the five Commissioners who have interviewed him. Or who should have interviewed him by now. Commissioners have to whittle the field to three by Thursday night, though this may depend on whether they have gotten the guidance they said they needed from someone or other.
So the country dodged a bullet over the federal "fiscal cliff." It's a little less clear the Village will dodge a bullet. The majority of the current Commission-- Jacobs, Cooper, and Watts-- have us squarely in their sights, and they have already set in motion the mechanism of destruction. There is a possibility that at least some of that can be reversed if we act quickly and decisively, but it's critical to end the stranglehold this majority has on the Village. Whether Cooper is right that we have 10 years to live, or Lee Evett is right that it's closer to five, we must develop an adequate revenue stream, and we have to begin to do it soon. The Commission majority has hog-tied our ability to raise revenue from ad valorem property tax for another year. So we'll hope for no surprise expenses or crises in this coming year. The same majority has done its best to prevent the possibility of annexing other territory, or even exploring the idea, but we may have another chance, if it doesn't get too late fast.
The Cooper and Jacobs Commission seats expire in December. It's critical that we displace one or both of them. Neither of them has brought anything to the table, so it's no loss to us if we vote them both out. It's a big loss to us if we don't.
Friday, October 11, 2013
The Best Laid Plans
I could have called this "To Be (Able to Trust), or Not To Be (Able to Trust), That is the Question," but it seemed too long.
The Village hires a planner. The firm's name is Bell David. Named for Mr Jerry Bell and Mr Alex David. Bell doesn't come around much any more. Now we get David. It's not that we need much help planning. The Village is so small, and our scope so narrow, that we don't really have any ambitions per se. What we need is advice regarding statutes and procedures: what they are and what municipalities have to do to satisfy them.
For example, regarding the matter of the school, the planner needed to know whether municipalities like ours are required by state law to make provision for a school. He needed to know if there was the possibility of an exemption. If there was, he needed to apply for it for us. If we had already been approved for one, he needed to know not to have us provide for a school in our comprehensive plan anyway, thereby negating the exemption.
Or on the matter of the possibility of annexing nearby territory, the planner needed to know if there was a substantial intent on the part of the County to get such areas annexed. As it happens, our planner does planning projects all over the county, and he works closely with the County Commission. He needed to know that a piece of the County near the airport was up for annexation, and that four municipalities had been working for ten years, partially against each other, to divide that territory (Miami Herald, 10/10/13). It should not have been a surprise to the planner to find that the County denied all four applications, reportedly because it disapproves of simply annexing a commercial tract in order to squeeze the businesses for the taxes they can provide. The planner should also know whether this decision represents a blanket posture for annexations in general, or whether there were other and unrevealed issues regarding the territory in question.
To be able to provide advice, insight, and perspective like this, the planner would have to have two characteristics. First, the planner would have to know the rules and relevant dynamics, and he would have to know what he was doing. Second, the planner would have to have the interests of Biscayne Park, his client, as his central concern. Specifically, he would have to place the interests of his client above his own interests. For example, if there was a reason his client was not required to provide zoning for a school, and the planner either didn't know if his client wanted a school or knew his client did not want a school, he would have to protect the client from getting a school, even though it provides more work and more fees for the planner if the client does have to make room for a school. And if the planner had reason to know it might be unlikely that a municipality could absorb some nearby territory through annexation, he would have to discourage the client from seeking to annex, even though it would provide far more work and fees for the planner if the client did pursue annexation.
The fact is, I don't know for sure whether Biscayne Park was required to zone for a school. I suspect not, since the Park is an unusual neighborhood, there are exemptions for neighborhoods like ours, and we were in fact named on a list of exempt communities. The planner brushes all of this aside, and tells us that we were not exempt and could not have been exempt. To accept this conclusion, I would have to determine to trust the planner, and to consider him competent and trustworthy. I have no more reason to do that than I have to know for sure whether our exemption was solid, or could have been made so. What I do know is that the planner has provided a great deal of advocacy for the church and the school, and he was reportedly overheard talking to the church/school people as if they were his main interest, and he was willing to sacrifice the Village for them.
And I don't know whether the County would consider an annexation application from us differently than it did from Doral, Medley, Miami Springs, and Virginia Gardens regarding the large tract near the airport. I don't know whether the planner knows about the problem with this application, or whether he has inquired of County Commissioners as to how they would look upon an application from us. If "three years ago, the cities submitted their agreement [and] the County's planning advisory board recommended that the Commissioners deny all the requests" (yesterday's Herald article), I would think the planner would know that. (I would certainly like to think Sally Heyman would not have been urging us to go for annexation if she knew her County Commission colleagues would not be accepting.) But the planner has focused only on annexation-related tasks, and how much it would cost us to accomplish them. This is fine, and certainly what we would want to know, as long as the planner is also seeing the big picture, like whether an annexation attempt is likely or not likely to succeed. Again, for me to assume that he has kept this perspective would require me to trust him, and his capability, and his judgement, and his advocacy of the Village first. I'm not sure I have reason enough to do that.
We need the services of a planner. He can help us, and he knows, or should know, rules and procedures no one else would know. He should have valuable contacts. But for him to provide the help we need, he has to be interested in us, even more than he is interested in himself. Our planner's time is not cheap. He charges us $125 an hour. That fee should be enough to keep him dedicated to us. If it isn't, he needs to tell us we're below market. Or he needs to quit working for us, and find a better-endowed client. Or perhaps we need someone with a clearer dedication to us. A competent Commission would address such an issue. We have what we have until December.
The Village hires a planner. The firm's name is Bell David. Named for Mr Jerry Bell and Mr Alex David. Bell doesn't come around much any more. Now we get David. It's not that we need much help planning. The Village is so small, and our scope so narrow, that we don't really have any ambitions per se. What we need is advice regarding statutes and procedures: what they are and what municipalities have to do to satisfy them.
For example, regarding the matter of the school, the planner needed to know whether municipalities like ours are required by state law to make provision for a school. He needed to know if there was the possibility of an exemption. If there was, he needed to apply for it for us. If we had already been approved for one, he needed to know not to have us provide for a school in our comprehensive plan anyway, thereby negating the exemption.
Or on the matter of the possibility of annexing nearby territory, the planner needed to know if there was a substantial intent on the part of the County to get such areas annexed. As it happens, our planner does planning projects all over the county, and he works closely with the County Commission. He needed to know that a piece of the County near the airport was up for annexation, and that four municipalities had been working for ten years, partially against each other, to divide that territory (Miami Herald, 10/10/13). It should not have been a surprise to the planner to find that the County denied all four applications, reportedly because it disapproves of simply annexing a commercial tract in order to squeeze the businesses for the taxes they can provide. The planner should also know whether this decision represents a blanket posture for annexations in general, or whether there were other and unrevealed issues regarding the territory in question.
To be able to provide advice, insight, and perspective like this, the planner would have to have two characteristics. First, the planner would have to know the rules and relevant dynamics, and he would have to know what he was doing. Second, the planner would have to have the interests of Biscayne Park, his client, as his central concern. Specifically, he would have to place the interests of his client above his own interests. For example, if there was a reason his client was not required to provide zoning for a school, and the planner either didn't know if his client wanted a school or knew his client did not want a school, he would have to protect the client from getting a school, even though it provides more work and more fees for the planner if the client does have to make room for a school. And if the planner had reason to know it might be unlikely that a municipality could absorb some nearby territory through annexation, he would have to discourage the client from seeking to annex, even though it would provide far more work and fees for the planner if the client did pursue annexation.
The fact is, I don't know for sure whether Biscayne Park was required to zone for a school. I suspect not, since the Park is an unusual neighborhood, there are exemptions for neighborhoods like ours, and we were in fact named on a list of exempt communities. The planner brushes all of this aside, and tells us that we were not exempt and could not have been exempt. To accept this conclusion, I would have to determine to trust the planner, and to consider him competent and trustworthy. I have no more reason to do that than I have to know for sure whether our exemption was solid, or could have been made so. What I do know is that the planner has provided a great deal of advocacy for the church and the school, and he was reportedly overheard talking to the church/school people as if they were his main interest, and he was willing to sacrifice the Village for them.
And I don't know whether the County would consider an annexation application from us differently than it did from Doral, Medley, Miami Springs, and Virginia Gardens regarding the large tract near the airport. I don't know whether the planner knows about the problem with this application, or whether he has inquired of County Commissioners as to how they would look upon an application from us. If "three years ago, the cities submitted their agreement [and] the County's planning advisory board recommended that the Commissioners deny all the requests" (yesterday's Herald article), I would think the planner would know that. (I would certainly like to think Sally Heyman would not have been urging us to go for annexation if she knew her County Commission colleagues would not be accepting.) But the planner has focused only on annexation-related tasks, and how much it would cost us to accomplish them. This is fine, and certainly what we would want to know, as long as the planner is also seeing the big picture, like whether an annexation attempt is likely or not likely to succeed. Again, for me to assume that he has kept this perspective would require me to trust him, and his capability, and his judgement, and his advocacy of the Village first. I'm not sure I have reason enough to do that.
We need the services of a planner. He can help us, and he knows, or should know, rules and procedures no one else would know. He should have valuable contacts. But for him to provide the help we need, he has to be interested in us, even more than he is interested in himself. Our planner's time is not cheap. He charges us $125 an hour. That fee should be enough to keep him dedicated to us. If it isn't, he needs to tell us we're below market. Or he needs to quit working for us, and find a better-endowed client. Or perhaps we need someone with a clearer dedication to us. A competent Commission would address such an issue. We have what we have until December.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
They're Ba-ack.
It was back-to-"school" night at Planning and Zoning tonight. After P&Z finished its normal agenda of permit applications, it entertained the Busta show, starring the Bustas and two of their assistants. One assistant was an architect, and the other was a traffic study expert, who had performed something that was presented as a traffic study.
The Bustas had two other helpers tonight. One was Eve Boutsis, whom the Village pays, supposedly to provide legal expertise for the Village's benefit, and the other was Alex David, whom the Village also pays, supposedly to provide municipal planning advice in furtherance of the Village's interests. But tonight, both of our paid professionals worked hard to get the Busta group its day care facility. Frankly, I doubt this is true, but one Village resident claims to have overheard Alex David tell Team Busta that he would see to it the application went through, otherwise he would angle us toward annexation by Miami Shores. I don't really believe anything that outrageous happened, but that's what someone told me. On the other hand, Team Busta did get excellent and energetic advocacy from the professionals the Village hires to protect it, so who knows. The Village did get sold down the river. And a bill of goods, too.
We're now told the aim is for 80 "students," of whom the youngest will be six weeks and the oldest will be six years. I still want to know what the curriculum for six-week-olds is. We're also told that the Village's only difficult, very difficult intersection will not be badly impacted at all by the delivery and retrieval of these 80 infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Every objection or even adverse observation by Village residents, even those who live right there, was made to drift lovingly away by the traffic study expert. Nope, no problems at all. Smooth as silk. Boutsis and David threw in a couple of strategic precautions, to shut the complainers up, but largely, they did what they were paid (by us, but not for us) to do in furtherance of Team Busta's goal: get that day care open, and let's make some money.
Boutsis and David apparently did their jobs well, because they persuaded all four members of P&Z that the requirements for a variance were met, so P&Z voted unanimously to recommend granting of the variance when the matter is presented to the Commission. The variance, by the way, is to allow the day care to function in buildings that are too close to the street and to the property line: less than 50 feet. There was also some talk, via an offer from Ma Busta, to erect a fence around the property, so the cherubs wouldn't run into the street. Would you like a fence around your property, to protect your own cherubs or your dogs? So would the Espinosas. Forget it. But don't tell Sandy Busta and Eve Boutsis and Alex David to forget it.
The underpinning is this. Several years ago, the Village agreed in its comprehensive plan, recommended by the very same Mr David, to permit zoning for a school, because Mr David said the state required it of us. Someone later discovered the Village had been given an exemption, but Mr David says this is simply not so. So we agreed to the school provision. Mr David has gotten that provision parlayed into permission for a day care, and here we are, paying an attorney and a planner to help Ms Busta and the Church of the Resurrection and the Breathtakingly Reverend Alberto Cutie have their way with the Village.
I doubt this counts as good news, but there is a suggestion for a yearly review of the traffic activity at this intersection. I'm not sure what difference it will make, because Team Busta's traffic survey magician should have no trouble demonstrating that whatever happens is not a problem, and the day care is there to stay anyway.
I'd like to say I learned something at back-to-school night, but I'm not sure I really understand what exactly happened. Or at least how it happened.
Oh, and by the way, the room was surprisingly empty. This kind of meeting usually brings out lots of Village residents, but it appears that somehow, whatever effort to provide "notice" of the meeting was attempted simply didn't work tonight. Had three residents not gone out of their way to tell me about this meeting, the total attendance of residents would have been four. But I was told, so it was five. I've seen 30-40 in that room for that topic. Someone was being careful not to awaken sleeping dogs.
The Bustas had two other helpers tonight. One was Eve Boutsis, whom the Village pays, supposedly to provide legal expertise for the Village's benefit, and the other was Alex David, whom the Village also pays, supposedly to provide municipal planning advice in furtherance of the Village's interests. But tonight, both of our paid professionals worked hard to get the Busta group its day care facility. Frankly, I doubt this is true, but one Village resident claims to have overheard Alex David tell Team Busta that he would see to it the application went through, otherwise he would angle us toward annexation by Miami Shores. I don't really believe anything that outrageous happened, but that's what someone told me. On the other hand, Team Busta did get excellent and energetic advocacy from the professionals the Village hires to protect it, so who knows. The Village did get sold down the river. And a bill of goods, too.
We're now told the aim is for 80 "students," of whom the youngest will be six weeks and the oldest will be six years. I still want to know what the curriculum for six-week-olds is. We're also told that the Village's only difficult, very difficult intersection will not be badly impacted at all by the delivery and retrieval of these 80 infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Every objection or even adverse observation by Village residents, even those who live right there, was made to drift lovingly away by the traffic study expert. Nope, no problems at all. Smooth as silk. Boutsis and David threw in a couple of strategic precautions, to shut the complainers up, but largely, they did what they were paid (by us, but not for us) to do in furtherance of Team Busta's goal: get that day care open, and let's make some money.
Boutsis and David apparently did their jobs well, because they persuaded all four members of P&Z that the requirements for a variance were met, so P&Z voted unanimously to recommend granting of the variance when the matter is presented to the Commission. The variance, by the way, is to allow the day care to function in buildings that are too close to the street and to the property line: less than 50 feet. There was also some talk, via an offer from Ma Busta, to erect a fence around the property, so the cherubs wouldn't run into the street. Would you like a fence around your property, to protect your own cherubs or your dogs? So would the Espinosas. Forget it. But don't tell Sandy Busta and Eve Boutsis and Alex David to forget it.
The underpinning is this. Several years ago, the Village agreed in its comprehensive plan, recommended by the very same Mr David, to permit zoning for a school, because Mr David said the state required it of us. Someone later discovered the Village had been given an exemption, but Mr David says this is simply not so. So we agreed to the school provision. Mr David has gotten that provision parlayed into permission for a day care, and here we are, paying an attorney and a planner to help Ms Busta and the Church of the Resurrection and the Breathtakingly Reverend Alberto Cutie have their way with the Village.
I doubt this counts as good news, but there is a suggestion for a yearly review of the traffic activity at this intersection. I'm not sure what difference it will make, because Team Busta's traffic survey magician should have no trouble demonstrating that whatever happens is not a problem, and the day care is there to stay anyway.
I'd like to say I learned something at back-to-school night, but I'm not sure I really understand what exactly happened. Or at least how it happened.
Oh, and by the way, the room was surprisingly empty. This kind of meeting usually brings out lots of Village residents, but it appears that somehow, whatever effort to provide "notice" of the meeting was attempted simply didn't work tonight. Had three residents not gone out of their way to tell me about this meeting, the total attendance of residents would have been four. But I was told, so it was five. I've seen 30-40 in that room for that topic. Someone was being careful not to awaken sleeping dogs.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Look, Ma! No Hands!!
Do you know what the exclamation marks signify? Self-satisfaction. Anxiety. And a realization that you're taking a risk, and if you didn't feel a need to be like the other kids, and unnerve your mother, you probably wouldn't be doing this. You remember, don't you? You were taking a chance, riding your two-wheeler with no hands. Heady. Dangerous. And you thought your mother would be impressed. You knew she'd be scared, though. Fact of the matter was, you were a bit scared yourself. But you were six, or seven, or eight. It's what children did. Not too bright, really, but one of those rites of foolhardiness. Did you fall? No? Neither did I. Or if I did, I have conveniently forgotten. No helmets in those days, either. Kind of stupid, when you think back on it. You feel clever if you don't fall. You'd feel like an idiot if you did. You'd get hurt, too. And what would your mother say if you fell? The funny thing is, when you look back on it, if you won, you didn't really win anything. If you lost, you lost a lot.
Our Commission has an identifiable and reliable majority. They don't necessarily think the same, heck, some of them don't think at all, but they vote together on most things. The crazier the issue, and the more it disturbs the rest of us, the more determined and united they are. I get it. I was six or seven or eight once, too.
What you're doing is dangerous.
So? No it's not.
You're going to get hurt. And you'll get us hurt.
Uh-uhuh. (You know, that sing-songy way.)
This majority, well, two thirds of it, anyway, has been able to recognize that we are in fiscal and functional trouble. One of them has been able to see the end of the Village in just 10 years. We can't live, because we don't have money. We should get some, we tell them. Nope, they reply. But it's easy. We can raise taxes. We want to raise our taxes. Nope. How about we keep our taxes the same, but we take on another area that pays more taxes per capita than we do? Nope. But we're not succeeding; we won't survive! Yup. Won't you do something? Nope.
Look, they tell us, it's your own fault. You had money, 10 years ago, and you didn't spend it wisely. So now you're to be punished. But I had nothing to say about how that money was spent, you plead, and anyway, I'd be much more careful now. Too bad, they tell us. You're not getting any more money. Anyway, December is around the corner. You better hope Santa Claus brings you money. But there is no Santa Claus, you urge. (After all, not everyone in this story is a child.) Oh, well, they admonish, you just better hope there is.
What's really crazy, crazier than anything else, is that both of these two characters occupy Commission seats that expire in less than two months. One of them claims he's running again. Presumably, he sees himself as a success, and he wants another term. Or he has no insight, which he hasn't, and he's breathtakingly arrogant, which he is, and he can't figure out what's wrong with this picture. The other one hasn't yet let us know his ambitions for himself and for us. Of course it won't matter, if we realize that our ambitions for him and us are more determinative than his are.
So when you decided to show yourself off, and demonstrate what a talented daredevil you were, did you ride with no hands on a busy street, with construction and rocks and cracks in the street, traffic coming from every angle, and blind-folded? No? You're not that stupid, right? Well, you're not. And if you had been, it's more likely you would have been grounded than lauded. Or you would have gotten badly hurt. You would have deserved it, too.
Look, Ma. No hands.
Our Commission has an identifiable and reliable majority. They don't necessarily think the same, heck, some of them don't think at all, but they vote together on most things. The crazier the issue, and the more it disturbs the rest of us, the more determined and united they are. I get it. I was six or seven or eight once, too.
What you're doing is dangerous.
So? No it's not.
You're going to get hurt. And you'll get us hurt.
Uh-uhuh. (You know, that sing-songy way.)
This majority, well, two thirds of it, anyway, has been able to recognize that we are in fiscal and functional trouble. One of them has been able to see the end of the Village in just 10 years. We can't live, because we don't have money. We should get some, we tell them. Nope, they reply. But it's easy. We can raise taxes. We want to raise our taxes. Nope. How about we keep our taxes the same, but we take on another area that pays more taxes per capita than we do? Nope. But we're not succeeding; we won't survive! Yup. Won't you do something? Nope.
Look, they tell us, it's your own fault. You had money, 10 years ago, and you didn't spend it wisely. So now you're to be punished. But I had nothing to say about how that money was spent, you plead, and anyway, I'd be much more careful now. Too bad, they tell us. You're not getting any more money. Anyway, December is around the corner. You better hope Santa Claus brings you money. But there is no Santa Claus, you urge. (After all, not everyone in this story is a child.) Oh, well, they admonish, you just better hope there is.
What's really crazy, crazier than anything else, is that both of these two characters occupy Commission seats that expire in less than two months. One of them claims he's running again. Presumably, he sees himself as a success, and he wants another term. Or he has no insight, which he hasn't, and he's breathtakingly arrogant, which he is, and he can't figure out what's wrong with this picture. The other one hasn't yet let us know his ambitions for himself and for us. Of course it won't matter, if we realize that our ambitions for him and us are more determinative than his are.
So when you decided to show yourself off, and demonstrate what a talented daredevil you were, did you ride with no hands on a busy street, with construction and rocks and cracks in the street, traffic coming from every angle, and blind-folded? No? You're not that stupid, right? Well, you're not. And if you had been, it's more likely you would have been grounded than lauded. Or you would have gotten badly hurt. You would have deserved it, too.
Look, Ma. No hands.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
What Would it Take?
During the last Commission meeting, the prickly issue of whether or not to pursue annexation was presented. Ross and Anderson thought we should pursue it, meaning pay the planner the next installment (approximately $2500) to prepare an application, so we can gather more information and keep the door open. Jacobs and Cooper do not want to annex, so they voted not to spend another dime or another second on the matter. (More in a moment.)
Watts was the possible swing vote. This was one of those situations, as I described, where Ross and Anderson had voted yes, then Jacobs and Cooper voted no, at which point Jacobs looked at Watts and instructed her to vote with him and Cooper. Often enough, like then, she's a good girl and does what she's told, at least depending on who's instructing her.
So Watts registered her required vote against continuing the annexation exploration. But she didn't simply vote no, as Jacobs no doubt intended. She messed up the process by saying it would require something really "compelling" for her to vote to continue looking at annexation, and she indicated there were questions, the answers to which she didn't yet know. Oh, Barbara, Jacobs was no doubt thinking, can't you just speak when you're spoken to? I asked for your vote, not your thinking.
So the question is raised: what could possibly compel Barbara Watts to consider annexation? What questions does she wish answered? And to anticipate part of this discussion, Ross picked up on Watts' wish for information, and she offered answers to questions. But since Watts' little comment was part of a whole sentence that included her no vote, Jacobs pounced on the consensus he wanted. It was 3-2 against, and that's all he needed to know. No, no, no, he bludgeoned Ross, we have a vote, and we're done with this issue. If you want to see what ugly, infantile behavior, masquerading as a political discussion among chronological adults looks like, please come to Commission meetings. But hurry before the December election. The real show depends on having Jacobs in the Mayor's seat, and it's not clear that will continue to happen.
At any rate, back to the Watts question: what would compel her to consider annexation?
Annexation is mostly about revenue. It's about revenue we don't have. It's about revenue we can get by taking new territory. The questions are what do we want the money for, and can we get it any other way? And as a frame of reference, four of our Commissioners feel we need money. Ross and Anderson do, Jacobs says he knows we do, and Cooper frankly gives us a prognosis of 10 years to live. That's a bit more dire than the other three.
What would "compel" Watts to think we should look further into annexation? She's offered that we can place a little strip mall next to Village Hall, but she seems to have done that as a concession, not because she necessarily agrees we need the money. The fact that we live hand-to-mouth and have no reserve does not compel Watts to think we need a better source of revenue than we have. Watts does not appear to take a long view of anything, and she has no identifiable sense of perspective or proportion, so it is not clear the absence of a reserve means anything to her.
Watts takes a very limited and specific interest in our medians. She advocates for the Australian Pine. Other than that, she does not appear to know or care that the medians are poorly developed and minimally maintained. And to the extent that she can get her two Commission pals to join her in snatching small amounts of money out of the reserve we don't have to pay for maintenance of the menace Australian Pines, she does not appear to see this minor maintenance task as requiring more revenue than we have. The general condition of BP medians does not compel Watts to think we have a problem we should solve.
Our administrative buildings are in trouble. The log cabin and the police headquarters need significant renovation, and the police headquarters need to exist in a real building connected to the log cabin, not in a trailer. There is no possibility on earth that we can address any of that with our "budget." "Compelling" enough for Watts? Evidently not. Presumably, if asked, she would either say she doesn't agree this is a problem, or she would decide to let it be some future Commission's problem. As I said, no long view, no sense of perspective or proportion.
We need a new public address and recording system for our meetings. Funny enough, Watts speaks so softly and so fast that she is the best advertisement for why we need the upgrade. The fact that recordings are hard to hear is another reason. Watts was one of those who ran on the "sanctity of the public record" platform. The cost of an upgrade is about $10K, by some estimates. Forget it, we don't have it. Problem to Watts? Seems not. And increased lighting in the Village? Uh, I don't think so.
Watts is constantly looking out for others. She hates tax increases, because they squeeze taxpayers. So she thinks; so she's been told. She agreed to a millage of 9.7, but she refused to tax us at 9.75. The difference for the average homeowner is about $6.50 per year. Her own house is a bit more on the modest side, so maybe $3-$4 for her. But since she is so concerned about the finances of other people, she found it impossible to tax at that higher rate, the one that would have cost us about $6.50 a year more. She also resisted annexation of the territory in question, because it would increase the ad valorem property tax of those people over there. She's just looking out for their financial interests. But we pay all of our employees, except the manager and the police chief, at an embarrassingly low rate. These people, our police, our public works people, our administrative staff, are important to the Village, they work hard here, and they have expenses and families of their own. How is it Watts isn't concerned about them? And what about the people who don't receive any further income from us, because we fired them to save the money? Does Watts give them much thought?
Watts has a limited and strategic interest in public art. If our buying a piece of public art would help one of her friends, she wants it. If not, she's not interested. But we can't afford public art. She and her two Commission co-conspirators agreed to steal $2500 out of Village coffers to help pay for a mural, $2500 that was not specifically budgeted for public art and which therefore didn't exactly exist for that purpose. But we may not get the mural anyway, since we don't have the rest of the money, unless Watts, Jacobs, and Cooper decide to steal that, too. But does this problem compel Watts to think that perhaps we do after all need more revenue? No such evidence.
Nobody likes crime, and nobody likes noise. A barrier along the tracks would help solve both problems. This is a hugely expensive project that would take years and maybe decades to complete. It is not on our radar screen and barely in our fantasy life. Reason for Watts to think we should save, and increase revenues? Nope.
But suppose Watts agreed we could use a bit more money, or that she was willing to concede to all four of her colleagues who agree we are a sinking ship. Our easy, direct way of raising money, the only method our unique existence as a Village permits us, is to raise our taxes. A peculiarity of this Village is that we have essentially no meaningful source of revenue except what we pay ourselves through ad valorem taxes and utility taxes. Well, as she already showed us, Watts doesn't want to raise taxes. She, and even moreso her pals Jacobs and Cooper, have cut the heart out of our system. If you want to know what happens to an organism once the heart is removed, ask Cooper. He says that for this kind of organism, it takes 10 years for it to happen.
So we're left with one other possibility: change the Village into something other than what it is and has always been. There appears to be pretty good agreement about that. All five Commissioners agree that we should introduce into the Village of Biscayne Park a commercial component, and commercial tax money. Ross and Anderson, and many others of us, find it convenient if that commercial component should happen to be someplace where we can't see it, literally across tracks. Assuming we can't raise taxes, for which very many of us, including the typical cheapskates, have argued. It seems all of us, except the pandering pedagogues, have made this argument.
But Watts, Jacobs, and possibly Cooper, have another idea. Let's invent a commercial component in the Village, our little, compact, residential-only Village, and we'll place it right next to Village Hall. Here's the analogy: you decide your house needs an additional bathroom. But you don't want to change the footprint of the structure, and installing a bathroom costs a lot of money. So you decide to eliminate in the kitchen sink. It all goes to the same place, for goodness' sake.
This is Watts', etc, idea. And if you want to know what our fiscal needs are, and what income stream this strip mall will produce, the proponents haven't the faintest idea. These are the advocates of special prudence, and lots of questions. Not this time, though.
So what, in fact, would "compel" Watts to rethink annexation? What would it take for her to reconsider her approach to this topic? One thing it would take is a broad view and perspective, and a devotion to that part of the Village that is beyond Watts' own house and bank account. It appears nobody's home on that approach. Other than that, who knows? Watts left a peculiar door open. Jacobs, in his arrogant, abusive way, tried to shut it back. Frankly, with the Bernard/Cooper/Jacobs/Watts wagons circled as tightly as they are, I doubt we're in any danger of encountering open-mindedness and thinking that is in the interest of the Village.
There are, by the way, perfectly good reasons not to want to annex. But those reasons have to entrain viable and rational alternatives. We're not given that here. We're given nothing but Cooper's death sentence (and some idiotic and half-baked idea about a strip mall). If that's the real goal for these neighbors, they owe us the honesty to say so.
Watts was the possible swing vote. This was one of those situations, as I described, where Ross and Anderson had voted yes, then Jacobs and Cooper voted no, at which point Jacobs looked at Watts and instructed her to vote with him and Cooper. Often enough, like then, she's a good girl and does what she's told, at least depending on who's instructing her.
So Watts registered her required vote against continuing the annexation exploration. But she didn't simply vote no, as Jacobs no doubt intended. She messed up the process by saying it would require something really "compelling" for her to vote to continue looking at annexation, and she indicated there were questions, the answers to which she didn't yet know. Oh, Barbara, Jacobs was no doubt thinking, can't you just speak when you're spoken to? I asked for your vote, not your thinking.
So the question is raised: what could possibly compel Barbara Watts to consider annexation? What questions does she wish answered? And to anticipate part of this discussion, Ross picked up on Watts' wish for information, and she offered answers to questions. But since Watts' little comment was part of a whole sentence that included her no vote, Jacobs pounced on the consensus he wanted. It was 3-2 against, and that's all he needed to know. No, no, no, he bludgeoned Ross, we have a vote, and we're done with this issue. If you want to see what ugly, infantile behavior, masquerading as a political discussion among chronological adults looks like, please come to Commission meetings. But hurry before the December election. The real show depends on having Jacobs in the Mayor's seat, and it's not clear that will continue to happen.
At any rate, back to the Watts question: what would compel her to consider annexation?
Annexation is mostly about revenue. It's about revenue we don't have. It's about revenue we can get by taking new territory. The questions are what do we want the money for, and can we get it any other way? And as a frame of reference, four of our Commissioners feel we need money. Ross and Anderson do, Jacobs says he knows we do, and Cooper frankly gives us a prognosis of 10 years to live. That's a bit more dire than the other three.
What would "compel" Watts to think we should look further into annexation? She's offered that we can place a little strip mall next to Village Hall, but she seems to have done that as a concession, not because she necessarily agrees we need the money. The fact that we live hand-to-mouth and have no reserve does not compel Watts to think we need a better source of revenue than we have. Watts does not appear to take a long view of anything, and she has no identifiable sense of perspective or proportion, so it is not clear the absence of a reserve means anything to her.
Watts takes a very limited and specific interest in our medians. She advocates for the Australian Pine. Other than that, she does not appear to know or care that the medians are poorly developed and minimally maintained. And to the extent that she can get her two Commission pals to join her in snatching small amounts of money out of the reserve we don't have to pay for maintenance of the menace Australian Pines, she does not appear to see this minor maintenance task as requiring more revenue than we have. The general condition of BP medians does not compel Watts to think we have a problem we should solve.
Our administrative buildings are in trouble. The log cabin and the police headquarters need significant renovation, and the police headquarters need to exist in a real building connected to the log cabin, not in a trailer. There is no possibility on earth that we can address any of that with our "budget." "Compelling" enough for Watts? Evidently not. Presumably, if asked, she would either say she doesn't agree this is a problem, or she would decide to let it be some future Commission's problem. As I said, no long view, no sense of perspective or proportion.
We need a new public address and recording system for our meetings. Funny enough, Watts speaks so softly and so fast that she is the best advertisement for why we need the upgrade. The fact that recordings are hard to hear is another reason. Watts was one of those who ran on the "sanctity of the public record" platform. The cost of an upgrade is about $10K, by some estimates. Forget it, we don't have it. Problem to Watts? Seems not. And increased lighting in the Village? Uh, I don't think so.
Watts is constantly looking out for others. She hates tax increases, because they squeeze taxpayers. So she thinks; so she's been told. She agreed to a millage of 9.7, but she refused to tax us at 9.75. The difference for the average homeowner is about $6.50 per year. Her own house is a bit more on the modest side, so maybe $3-$4 for her. But since she is so concerned about the finances of other people, she found it impossible to tax at that higher rate, the one that would have cost us about $6.50 a year more. She also resisted annexation of the territory in question, because it would increase the ad valorem property tax of those people over there. She's just looking out for their financial interests. But we pay all of our employees, except the manager and the police chief, at an embarrassingly low rate. These people, our police, our public works people, our administrative staff, are important to the Village, they work hard here, and they have expenses and families of their own. How is it Watts isn't concerned about them? And what about the people who don't receive any further income from us, because we fired them to save the money? Does Watts give them much thought?
Watts has a limited and strategic interest in public art. If our buying a piece of public art would help one of her friends, she wants it. If not, she's not interested. But we can't afford public art. She and her two Commission co-conspirators agreed to steal $2500 out of Village coffers to help pay for a mural, $2500 that was not specifically budgeted for public art and which therefore didn't exactly exist for that purpose. But we may not get the mural anyway, since we don't have the rest of the money, unless Watts, Jacobs, and Cooper decide to steal that, too. But does this problem compel Watts to think that perhaps we do after all need more revenue? No such evidence.
Nobody likes crime, and nobody likes noise. A barrier along the tracks would help solve both problems. This is a hugely expensive project that would take years and maybe decades to complete. It is not on our radar screen and barely in our fantasy life. Reason for Watts to think we should save, and increase revenues? Nope.
But suppose Watts agreed we could use a bit more money, or that she was willing to concede to all four of her colleagues who agree we are a sinking ship. Our easy, direct way of raising money, the only method our unique existence as a Village permits us, is to raise our taxes. A peculiarity of this Village is that we have essentially no meaningful source of revenue except what we pay ourselves through ad valorem taxes and utility taxes. Well, as she already showed us, Watts doesn't want to raise taxes. She, and even moreso her pals Jacobs and Cooper, have cut the heart out of our system. If you want to know what happens to an organism once the heart is removed, ask Cooper. He says that for this kind of organism, it takes 10 years for it to happen.
So we're left with one other possibility: change the Village into something other than what it is and has always been. There appears to be pretty good agreement about that. All five Commissioners agree that we should introduce into the Village of Biscayne Park a commercial component, and commercial tax money. Ross and Anderson, and many others of us, find it convenient if that commercial component should happen to be someplace where we can't see it, literally across tracks. Assuming we can't raise taxes, for which very many of us, including the typical cheapskates, have argued. It seems all of us, except the pandering pedagogues, have made this argument.
But Watts, Jacobs, and possibly Cooper, have another idea. Let's invent a commercial component in the Village, our little, compact, residential-only Village, and we'll place it right next to Village Hall. Here's the analogy: you decide your house needs an additional bathroom. But you don't want to change the footprint of the structure, and installing a bathroom costs a lot of money. So you decide to eliminate in the kitchen sink. It all goes to the same place, for goodness' sake.
This is Watts', etc, idea. And if you want to know what our fiscal needs are, and what income stream this strip mall will produce, the proponents haven't the faintest idea. These are the advocates of special prudence, and lots of questions. Not this time, though.
So what, in fact, would "compel" Watts to rethink annexation? What would it take for her to reconsider her approach to this topic? One thing it would take is a broad view and perspective, and a devotion to that part of the Village that is beyond Watts' own house and bank account. It appears nobody's home on that approach. Other than that, who knows? Watts left a peculiar door open. Jacobs, in his arrogant, abusive way, tried to shut it back. Frankly, with the Bernard/Cooper/Jacobs/Watts wagons circled as tightly as they are, I doubt we're in any danger of encountering open-mindedness and thinking that is in the interest of the Village.
There are, by the way, perfectly good reasons not to want to annex. But those reasons have to entrain viable and rational alternatives. We're not given that here. We're given nothing but Cooper's death sentence (and some idiotic and half-baked idea about a strip mall). If that's the real goal for these neighbors, they owe us the honesty to say so.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
About That Fence
The house in question is at 780 NE 119 Street. We've all been watching the house, because it was not in good repair for quite a while. The current owners bought it this year or late last year, and they have done a lot of work on it. It looks very nice now.
The lot is unusual, though it's not the only such lot in the Park. Because of the way the house is situated, the lot looks long and thin. The house is set way back, giving the impression that there must be no back yard at all. And it's a small-looking house, adding to the effect. The front yard was planted thick with lots of fruit trees. It appears some may be gone.
What the new owners wanted to do was create a barrier in front, so their dogs could run around. They seemed to say they had essentially no back yard. They wanted a picket fence in front. We then saw survey drawings and a photograph.
The drawing shows that there is in fact a back yard, 22 feet deep at its shallowest point and 32 feet deep at some other point. The front yard is very large, as we knew.
The photograph showed a fence seemingly just a few feet in front of the house.
My initial reaction, before I saw the drawing and the photograph, was that the owners probably really did need a fence, to contain the dogs, since there was no other room for them. But then it became clear they do have a back yard, seeming perhaps to obviate the need to make a front yard enclosure. Also, it wasn't clear where the owners imagined the dogs would run out front, since the fence was so close to the house that no real enclosure was created.
One person familiar with this development added a new insight. The fence was only close to the house for most of the front expanse, but it was 40 feet from the house along one side. It appears that the reason for the "bump out" on that side is to make room for the owners' RV, which is within the fenced area. So again, no room for dogs to run.
The meaning of this fence was getting increasingly ambiguous.
Furthermore, we were told the fence was erected "to Code," though without permits, and then part of it was shifted out front, to make room for the RV. That part, too, is said to be "to Code." But Code for fences includes anchoring of the posts so that it would be a major undertaking to move part of the fence. Or it would have been a major undertaking to have moved part of the fence. That's what we were told happened. This fact, I'm sorry to say, raises questions about whether the fence was really erected "to Code," whether it is permanent now, and perhaps even whether the homeowners own it, or are borrowing it to make some sort of statement or inroad. The questions were not asked, and I don't know the answers.
As a personal, subjective matter, I think the property looks nice with the fence (I don't mind fences, and I never did), and the part containing the RV is behind enough trees that you have to look carefully even to see it. My feeling, as a BP resident and someone who happens to live less than two blocks away, was that it would have made a very positive difference to the homeowners to have used the fence for the stated reasons. I was put off, however, by a few facts. One was the fact that there is, in actuality, a usable back yard, so the presentation seemed like a misrepresentation. The homeowners stated they preferred to let the dogs run out front, but this was a matter of preference, not a functional limitation of the property. That distinction is critically important in variances. The second thing that put me off was that the position of the fence so close to the house, and the presence of the RV, left little or no meaningful room for dogs to run, so again, I was unsure what the homeowners were really communicating, and what their real aim was. Finally, I resented that the fence had been erected seemingly as a ploy, since the homeowners had every reason to know perfectly well they couldn't put up a fence without a permit. The whole presentation left me feeling tricked. I do not, however, vote. Let me tell you about the people who do.
Bryan Cooper, for whatever reasons, loves picket fences. He also, for whatever reasons, hates government, rules, enforcement, and anything he identifies as "the man." So he was a reflex avid advocate for the homeowners. His position cannot be taken any more substantially or seriously than that. He voted to approve the application for the variance. He also, interestingly, advised the homeowners to leave the fence in place, even when the application was denied, on the hope that a new Commission after December 3 might look more favorably on it. He supported all the bad behavior of the homeowners, and encouraged them to break Village laws, in the interest of the fence that they want and he likes. Interests of the neighborhood? Not so much.
Bob Anderson is not, as far as I can guess, a front yard fence lover. If he is, I don't know about it. But much more to the point, he seemed at least as resentful as I was, and seemingly much more offended, that the homeowners manipulated this fence into place in what they had to know was a proscribed way. He voted to deny the application for the variance.
Noah Jacobs voted to allow the homeowners to have their fence. He shares anti-government, anti-rules, anti-enforcement leanings with Bryan. His advocacy, however, did not include a personal preference for fences, picket or otherwise. It was a less specific, less issue-driven, more provocative advocacy that was anarchic more than it was sensitive. His intellectualization of the moment had to do with the homeowners' having improved the property, so they should be rewarded by getting to have their way with the neighborhood and its rules.
Roxy Ross judged this purely and dispassionately by the book, as far as I could tell. The true need and hardship requirements weren't there, and so there was no indication to approve the variance.
Barbara Watts was rigidly against the fence. Barbara hates front yard fences. Barbara appeared barely to be listening, as is typical for her, and the answer was simply no.
So I think the Commission was right to deny the variance, and I think there was a combination of reasons for the denial. Importantly, the fact that the variance requirements were in actuality not met was prominent enough among those reasons. That being said, however, if the homeowners had made a more straightforward and honest-seeming application, I would love to have seen them get their fence. It just wasn't possible with our current Code and the requirements for variances.
The lot is unusual, though it's not the only such lot in the Park. Because of the way the house is situated, the lot looks long and thin. The house is set way back, giving the impression that there must be no back yard at all. And it's a small-looking house, adding to the effect. The front yard was planted thick with lots of fruit trees. It appears some may be gone.
What the new owners wanted to do was create a barrier in front, so their dogs could run around. They seemed to say they had essentially no back yard. They wanted a picket fence in front. We then saw survey drawings and a photograph.
The drawing shows that there is in fact a back yard, 22 feet deep at its shallowest point and 32 feet deep at some other point. The front yard is very large, as we knew.
The photograph showed a fence seemingly just a few feet in front of the house.
My initial reaction, before I saw the drawing and the photograph, was that the owners probably really did need a fence, to contain the dogs, since there was no other room for them. But then it became clear they do have a back yard, seeming perhaps to obviate the need to make a front yard enclosure. Also, it wasn't clear where the owners imagined the dogs would run out front, since the fence was so close to the house that no real enclosure was created.
One person familiar with this development added a new insight. The fence was only close to the house for most of the front expanse, but it was 40 feet from the house along one side. It appears that the reason for the "bump out" on that side is to make room for the owners' RV, which is within the fenced area. So again, no room for dogs to run.
The meaning of this fence was getting increasingly ambiguous.
Furthermore, we were told the fence was erected "to Code," though without permits, and then part of it was shifted out front, to make room for the RV. That part, too, is said to be "to Code." But Code for fences includes anchoring of the posts so that it would be a major undertaking to move part of the fence. Or it would have been a major undertaking to have moved part of the fence. That's what we were told happened. This fact, I'm sorry to say, raises questions about whether the fence was really erected "to Code," whether it is permanent now, and perhaps even whether the homeowners own it, or are borrowing it to make some sort of statement or inroad. The questions were not asked, and I don't know the answers.
As a personal, subjective matter, I think the property looks nice with the fence (I don't mind fences, and I never did), and the part containing the RV is behind enough trees that you have to look carefully even to see it. My feeling, as a BP resident and someone who happens to live less than two blocks away, was that it would have made a very positive difference to the homeowners to have used the fence for the stated reasons. I was put off, however, by a few facts. One was the fact that there is, in actuality, a usable back yard, so the presentation seemed like a misrepresentation. The homeowners stated they preferred to let the dogs run out front, but this was a matter of preference, not a functional limitation of the property. That distinction is critically important in variances. The second thing that put me off was that the position of the fence so close to the house, and the presence of the RV, left little or no meaningful room for dogs to run, so again, I was unsure what the homeowners were really communicating, and what their real aim was. Finally, I resented that the fence had been erected seemingly as a ploy, since the homeowners had every reason to know perfectly well they couldn't put up a fence without a permit. The whole presentation left me feeling tricked. I do not, however, vote. Let me tell you about the people who do.
Bryan Cooper, for whatever reasons, loves picket fences. He also, for whatever reasons, hates government, rules, enforcement, and anything he identifies as "the man." So he was a reflex avid advocate for the homeowners. His position cannot be taken any more substantially or seriously than that. He voted to approve the application for the variance. He also, interestingly, advised the homeowners to leave the fence in place, even when the application was denied, on the hope that a new Commission after December 3 might look more favorably on it. He supported all the bad behavior of the homeowners, and encouraged them to break Village laws, in the interest of the fence that they want and he likes. Interests of the neighborhood? Not so much.
Bob Anderson is not, as far as I can guess, a front yard fence lover. If he is, I don't know about it. But much more to the point, he seemed at least as resentful as I was, and seemingly much more offended, that the homeowners manipulated this fence into place in what they had to know was a proscribed way. He voted to deny the application for the variance.
Noah Jacobs voted to allow the homeowners to have their fence. He shares anti-government, anti-rules, anti-enforcement leanings with Bryan. His advocacy, however, did not include a personal preference for fences, picket or otherwise. It was a less specific, less issue-driven, more provocative advocacy that was anarchic more than it was sensitive. His intellectualization of the moment had to do with the homeowners' having improved the property, so they should be rewarded by getting to have their way with the neighborhood and its rules.
Roxy Ross judged this purely and dispassionately by the book, as far as I could tell. The true need and hardship requirements weren't there, and so there was no indication to approve the variance.
Barbara Watts was rigidly against the fence. Barbara hates front yard fences. Barbara appeared barely to be listening, as is typical for her, and the answer was simply no.
So I think the Commission was right to deny the variance, and I think there was a combination of reasons for the denial. Importantly, the fact that the variance requirements were in actuality not met was prominent enough among those reasons. That being said, however, if the homeowners had made a more straightforward and honest-seeming application, I would love to have seen them get their fence. It just wasn't possible with our current Code and the requirements for variances.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Death Sentence
The Commission meeting for October 1, 2013, was one of the worst ever. The agenda was tiny, and it still took four hours. Noah Jacobs was as rude, dismissive, and childish as he has ever been, although there were no full-blown tantrums today, and he, Bryan Cooper, and Barbara Watts kept themselves in mindless lock step. Many of the votes, about a variety of topics, were Ross and Anderson one way, then Jacobs and Cooper the other way, with Jacobs then looking over to Watts, who hadn't voted, asking for her vote in concert with him and Cooper. This happened repeatedly.
Here's a simple issue: Ross introduced a resolution that the Village have and publicize a stance against bullying in children. It's a relatively hot topic these days, there's lots of momentum to confront it, and Ross put together a whole "Whereas" and "Therefore" synthesis, complete with backup and references. Hard not to vote for that, right? Boilerplate, right? Tell that to Cooper, who is still propping up some alleged non-event regarding a disgruntled employee from 3 1/2 years ago. Cooper insisted on including language confronting bullying against employees, too. Fortunately for him, he has his brain dead stooges to back him up, so he and Jacobs and Watts refused to pass Ross' Resolution. Fine, said Ross, you take the Resolution, rework all the language to make it the way you want it, and bring it back next time. "Work?!," Cooper seemed to reply. Uh, I don't think so. But Ross left it to him. So we'll probably never hear about it again. And I didn't keep track, but this foolish discussion consumed a surprising amount of time.
A couple have a house that is set unusually far back on an odd-shaped lot. They wanted a picket fence in front of the house, to contain their dogs. Well, you just say picket fence to Bryan Cooper, and he starts making a certain kind of happy mess in his pants. He was all over this one. Yes, he could see why these lovely people, with the disadvantaged property layout, and the charming boxer dogs, simply must have their picket fence. The problem was, no one else could see why that was necessary. And others were somehow put off by the fact that these delightful neighbors had installed this fence without a permit, then moved it without a permit, even though they did lots of other work and seemed fully aware of the requirement for permits. They never explained the lapse. So they didn't get their variance, and Bryan got really quiet.
Annexation. Or apparently not. A particularly ugly display, with Jacobs being at his rude, tyrannical, childish best. It eventually became clear that the three musketeers, or the three stooges, or whatever they are, were pleased to see that they were adequately aligned, and that we would not pursue annexation. It appears Steve Bernard is back on his game, and he was able to straighten them all out. Each one, mainly Watts, parroted whatever talking points Steve instructed, and they managed to act in idiotic concert to kill the deal. Jacobs almost slipped up, saying he wouldn't vote to proceed unless there was a cap on spending. So Ross amended her motion, the happy group delivered the cap to Jacobs, and he remembered his mission and voted against pursuing annexation anyway. I'm guessing the guy doesn't have many friends.
It isn't easy for goofballs like Jacobs and Cooper to say they agree that the Village is in deep fiscal trouble, then vote against every mechanism to try to save it. But that's what they do. And Watts is dutifully along for the ride. Cooper gives us 10 years to live. But still, he thinks he's angling to get us married off to the Shores family.
The search for a new manager. Roxy Ross got really pushy and decided they should whittle down the list tonight, make an imminent date for interviews, and choose a manager on the day of the interviews. No, no, no, Jacobs countered. We may need to space things out. (Hmm, what for?) Yeah, said Watts, maybe Commissioners would like to talk to others before they make up their minds. (Oh, that's what for.) So our brave and wise majority decided it would prepare a short list by October 17, interview on November 6, and present its choice, or someone's choice, on November 14. And all of this occurred in the presence of two visitors: manager candidates. I guess we'll know tomorrow if they withdraw their applications.
It's really kind of unimaginable that we allowed ourselves to have this kind of nonsense comprising the majority of our Commission. It's sort of like the day enough people in Minnesota all got mad on the same day and elected Jesse Ventura governor. It was a mistake they didn't repeat when he ran for re-election. Cooper keeps talking about our upcoming elections, and Jacobs mentioned it, too. Both of their terms are up. I hope we don't make the same stupid mistake we did when we elected them. But the people who vote don't come to meetings, so they have no idea what on earth they did.
If you want to know what happened about the mural, it's in the immediately preceding post.
Here's a simple issue: Ross introduced a resolution that the Village have and publicize a stance against bullying in children. It's a relatively hot topic these days, there's lots of momentum to confront it, and Ross put together a whole "Whereas" and "Therefore" synthesis, complete with backup and references. Hard not to vote for that, right? Boilerplate, right? Tell that to Cooper, who is still propping up some alleged non-event regarding a disgruntled employee from 3 1/2 years ago. Cooper insisted on including language confronting bullying against employees, too. Fortunately for him, he has his brain dead stooges to back him up, so he and Jacobs and Watts refused to pass Ross' Resolution. Fine, said Ross, you take the Resolution, rework all the language to make it the way you want it, and bring it back next time. "Work?!," Cooper seemed to reply. Uh, I don't think so. But Ross left it to him. So we'll probably never hear about it again. And I didn't keep track, but this foolish discussion consumed a surprising amount of time.
A couple have a house that is set unusually far back on an odd-shaped lot. They wanted a picket fence in front of the house, to contain their dogs. Well, you just say picket fence to Bryan Cooper, and he starts making a certain kind of happy mess in his pants. He was all over this one. Yes, he could see why these lovely people, with the disadvantaged property layout, and the charming boxer dogs, simply must have their picket fence. The problem was, no one else could see why that was necessary. And others were somehow put off by the fact that these delightful neighbors had installed this fence without a permit, then moved it without a permit, even though they did lots of other work and seemed fully aware of the requirement for permits. They never explained the lapse. So they didn't get their variance, and Bryan got really quiet.
Annexation. Or apparently not. A particularly ugly display, with Jacobs being at his rude, tyrannical, childish best. It eventually became clear that the three musketeers, or the three stooges, or whatever they are, were pleased to see that they were adequately aligned, and that we would not pursue annexation. It appears Steve Bernard is back on his game, and he was able to straighten them all out. Each one, mainly Watts, parroted whatever talking points Steve instructed, and they managed to act in idiotic concert to kill the deal. Jacobs almost slipped up, saying he wouldn't vote to proceed unless there was a cap on spending. So Ross amended her motion, the happy group delivered the cap to Jacobs, and he remembered his mission and voted against pursuing annexation anyway. I'm guessing the guy doesn't have many friends.
It isn't easy for goofballs like Jacobs and Cooper to say they agree that the Village is in deep fiscal trouble, then vote against every mechanism to try to save it. But that's what they do. And Watts is dutifully along for the ride. Cooper gives us 10 years to live. But still, he thinks he's angling to get us married off to the Shores family.
The search for a new manager. Roxy Ross got really pushy and decided they should whittle down the list tonight, make an imminent date for interviews, and choose a manager on the day of the interviews. No, no, no, Jacobs countered. We may need to space things out. (Hmm, what for?) Yeah, said Watts, maybe Commissioners would like to talk to others before they make up their minds. (Oh, that's what for.) So our brave and wise majority decided it would prepare a short list by October 17, interview on November 6, and present its choice, or someone's choice, on November 14. And all of this occurred in the presence of two visitors: manager candidates. I guess we'll know tomorrow if they withdraw their applications.
It's really kind of unimaginable that we allowed ourselves to have this kind of nonsense comprising the majority of our Commission. It's sort of like the day enough people in Minnesota all got mad on the same day and elected Jesse Ventura governor. It was a mistake they didn't repeat when he ran for re-election. Cooper keeps talking about our upcoming elections, and Jacobs mentioned it, too. Both of their terms are up. I hope we don't make the same stupid mistake we did when we elected them. But the people who vote don't come to meetings, so they have no idea what on earth they did.
If you want to know what happened about the mural, it's in the immediately preceding post.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Mural, Mural on the Wall. A Saga in Two Parts: Part II
I will do my best to summarize what I believe to be the outcome of the mural saga. It was very disorganized, essentially incoherent, lacking in any sense of order or logic, and I do not guarantee I got it all.
Barbara Watts made the initial motion. She suggested we choose the mural her friends the art experts liked. The one the Village residents very much disliked. Her rationale was that experts liked it, so that was good enough for her. I asked her again, verbally this time, if that was the artist she knows. She now claims not to know any of them, and she seemed annoyed and taken aback that I would ask. I pointed out that I have asked in writing three times, that she has never replied, and that it appeared she must be hiding something. She did not respond, and she kept lobbying for her friends' choice.
It seems no one else on the Commission liked it, so it was rejected. Or would have been if Barbara had not continued to argue for it.
Noah Jacobs then hit upon the idea, after some urging, to take a vote on the mural proposal most supported by Village residents, or whoever paid for and electronically registered votes. This one might have gotten more support than a 2-3 rejection, except that it quickly came to light that Roxy Ross knows and is supportive of the artist, leading to a conclusion that this image not be accepted. So Noah tried to slog his way through some impromptu aimless attempt to consider other images, too, in fact all of them, in "order." The sense of order quickly evaporated.
It appears there was only one image that got 3-2 support, so there was some partial momentum to accept that one. Except for Watts' continued lobbying for her art expert friends' preference, which she then parlayed into a criticism of the chosen image. Her art expert friends said that that one was potentially acceptable, except a few design changes should be made. Watts lobbied for that. Anything, apparently, to rely on her friends. Even Noah Jacobs, who was a bit more off the handle than usual, could see why you don't tell an artist what to paint. Watts couldn't see it that way, though.
Next was how to pay for this. Watts and Cooper, who was mentally absent for most of the meeting, continued to insist on snatching Village coffers dough. Jacobs suggested "community funding." He didn't exactly explain what he intended this to mean, except he might have been shying away from using Village money. After the meeting, Bob Anderson thought the decision was to continue to use Village money, and Roxy Ross thought the decision was not to. Roxy says our Clerk/Interim Manager Maria Camara also thought it was not to. I myself wasn't completely sure. So it may remain to be clarified. And in any event, because we no longer know how we're going to pay for this mural, Maria is now given the unenviable task of going back to the artist to ask for a discount.
The bottom line was that the process was deeply flawed in absolutely every respect, and it's still not clear whether Village residents (oh, yeah, them) will even like the mural. Funny enough, the mural chosen got the second most votes, and it appears they all came from, and were paid for by, the artist.
So who knows. Do you know we actually pay these people? They could really not be more inept. The only two who made any sense were Roxy Ross, who thought we should agree to the one most supported (2-1 between that one and second place) by voters, and Bob Anderson, who voted against all of them, because the process was faulty, and he didn't want Village funds used.
Barbara Watts made the initial motion. She suggested we choose the mural her friends the art experts liked. The one the Village residents very much disliked. Her rationale was that experts liked it, so that was good enough for her. I asked her again, verbally this time, if that was the artist she knows. She now claims not to know any of them, and she seemed annoyed and taken aback that I would ask. I pointed out that I have asked in writing three times, that she has never replied, and that it appeared she must be hiding something. She did not respond, and she kept lobbying for her friends' choice.
It seems no one else on the Commission liked it, so it was rejected. Or would have been if Barbara had not continued to argue for it.
Noah Jacobs then hit upon the idea, after some urging, to take a vote on the mural proposal most supported by Village residents, or whoever paid for and electronically registered votes. This one might have gotten more support than a 2-3 rejection, except that it quickly came to light that Roxy Ross knows and is supportive of the artist, leading to a conclusion that this image not be accepted. So Noah tried to slog his way through some impromptu aimless attempt to consider other images, too, in fact all of them, in "order." The sense of order quickly evaporated.
It appears there was only one image that got 3-2 support, so there was some partial momentum to accept that one. Except for Watts' continued lobbying for her art expert friends' preference, which she then parlayed into a criticism of the chosen image. Her art expert friends said that that one was potentially acceptable, except a few design changes should be made. Watts lobbied for that. Anything, apparently, to rely on her friends. Even Noah Jacobs, who was a bit more off the handle than usual, could see why you don't tell an artist what to paint. Watts couldn't see it that way, though.
Next was how to pay for this. Watts and Cooper, who was mentally absent for most of the meeting, continued to insist on snatching Village coffers dough. Jacobs suggested "community funding." He didn't exactly explain what he intended this to mean, except he might have been shying away from using Village money. After the meeting, Bob Anderson thought the decision was to continue to use Village money, and Roxy Ross thought the decision was not to. Roxy says our Clerk/Interim Manager Maria Camara also thought it was not to. I myself wasn't completely sure. So it may remain to be clarified. And in any event, because we no longer know how we're going to pay for this mural, Maria is now given the unenviable task of going back to the artist to ask for a discount.
The bottom line was that the process was deeply flawed in absolutely every respect, and it's still not clear whether Village residents (oh, yeah, them) will even like the mural. Funny enough, the mural chosen got the second most votes, and it appears they all came from, and were paid for by, the artist.
So who knows. Do you know we actually pay these people? They could really not be more inept. The only two who made any sense were Roxy Ross, who thought we should agree to the one most supported (2-1 between that one and second place) by voters, and Bob Anderson, who voted against all of them, because the process was faulty, and he didn't want Village funds used.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)