Here We Go Again

Greetings Neighbors, 

I am writing you today to provide several videos and other thoughts to illustrate a disturbing trend that is happening within our Community. That being the failure to accept certain realities and the process of coming to terms with them.

In reviewing the agenda for tomorrow's Commission meeting, I noticed that Commissioner Watts has, once again, brought up the subject of annexation. I mention "again" in that she is simply re-hashing her same argument that failed to gain majority support from February 4th, 2014. The main difference now being that in February, it was the proper time to discuss it before any decisions were made. Her attempt to bring this topic up again now, some 8 months later & after the fact is not, and serves no constructive purpose.  

Barbara Watts apparently suffers from one of the most basic human failings shared by us all - she allows personal emotions to impact her business decisions. And this is problematic when serving as one of our elected public officials. Below is a link to the video from the annexation discussion on 2/04/14 to include the section from good and welfare. You will hear from those neighbors in attendance and the reasons behind their thinking.   

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgLi21OC7Wc 

During the annexation discussion on the video, Barbara Watts emotionally voices her distress and called for more delays and to defer the topic further. This, after personally admitting to the many delays and deferments already made by the previous Commission… one of which she was a part of. Her language and I quote; “because we want our sweet nice little Village, we want to live the way we want to live and we will be taxing the hell (half out of your mouth) out of these faceless people so that we can maintain our lifestyles” is disturbing to me on many fronts. 

Who is it that she serves? Our community, or the “faceless people” on the other side of the tracks?

I am at a loss to see how she, after studying our fiscal shortfalls finds that the proposition of annexation is to simply “maintain our lifestyle.” What is missing is the audited fact that our community has run a deficit in 8 out of the last 10 years losing $840,526 from our General Fund.  Why was this, the entire reason for this discussion in the first place not mentioned?  Curious isn't it?

Does she perceive only “greed” in seeking alternatives to simply survive as an independent entity? In this Barbara Watts has shown, in my opinion, very poor judgment towards the financial management of our community. All other Commissioners were in agreement, albeit Commissioner Anderson favored starting out with a smaller area first if possible. 

You will find another video that includes the final vote and, what should have been the conclusion of this discussion. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUUOuB4tzDM

After careful consideration the vote carried and was met with a hearty round of applause from the audience.  

Harvey Bilt said something during the Meet the Candidate’s night (December 2013) that struck a chord with me and was a pearl of wisdom. He stated and I quote “you’ve got to give in. If you don’t agree, then come up with a solution.”    

I feel there is a point that we all need to consider moving forward. And that point is… who do we want to be as a Community?

Do we want to continue to view ourselves as a fractured, disenfranchised lot or do we want to rise above the pettiness? If any of us choose to not be involved in the discussion and the process … and during the correct time, NOT these patented 11^th hour, [after the fact] panic knee jerk reactions, then we have no right… no right at all to complain or make idle threats due to our own negligence. There is no one to blame but ourselves. 

Below are comments from resident Andrew Olis:

At the last round of elections- (December 2013) annexation was one of the "hot topics" that was a part of every candidates platform, as was metal roofs opinion, code enforcement opinion etc...All were vocalized at the Meet the Candidates meeting. Elections occurred and the candidates were elected to be commissioners by the most votes (majority) of the residents based on their platforms and integrity. We need to allow our ELECTED OFFICIALS do what they promised. The clock has been ticking on this opportunity for a while now and of course becoming more and more difficult. We need to move things along faster in Biscayne Park and not to squander opportunities when we have a chance to do the right thing for the future of the Village. I am afraid to have the tightening window for the Annexation close, for the Log Cabin restoration and Village Hall annex getting bogged down in yet another war of opinions, and anything we have with a deadline. The Learning Center we lost (a $350,000 grant) was an embarrassing lesson learned already in bogging things down- why are we gearing up for a repeat? The future of our village is at stake. -Andrew Olis  

If we chose to be part of the solution… and not part of the problem… then we HAVE to be educated on the facts and get those facts from the proper source.  And that source is NOT some email circulation to only a select few under the cloak of secrecy. That action is part of the problem and not part of the solution! Neighbors, nothing is being hidden from you, there is no great conspiracy at work here, as suggested by some… but you need to be accountable for your own education. Until we are ALL willing to do this, I fear we will remain entrenched where we are… as we continue to bounce from topic to topic in unnecessary conflict.

 

Respectfully yours, 

Milton Hunter

Biscayne Park Resident

miltonhunter@gmail.com

 

"Jane, You Ignorant Slut"*

* The title was taken from an old Saturday Night Live routine involving Jane Curtin and Dan Aykroyd.  It was structured like the "Point, Counterpoint" interchange between Shana Alexander and James Kilpatrick of 60 Minutes.  Curtin would do her routine, following which Aykroyd would give his response.  He always began "Jane, you ignorant slut."


Letter to the Editor from Jerome Hurtak, Biscayne Times, October, 2014:

The Grave Matter of My Conscience

In Elliot Pilshaw’s letter, under the headline “Genteel Homophobia in Miami Shores” (September 2014), he asked who called Mayor Herta Holly to convince her to vote against the resolution in favor of gay marriage.

Mr. Pilshaw, I for one called. I called Mayor Holly, Councilman Hunt Davis, and Councilman Jim McCoy because I am opposed to changing marriage to include homosexual relationships.

I believe that human sexuality is life-affirming and sacred because its natural object is the creation of human life. That is why human sexuality must be treated with respect and dignity by officially sanctioning it within a life commitment called marriage.

It is also the reason why my faith teaches that marriage is not just a contract, it is a sacrament. A homosexual relationship denies the natural object of human sexuality and therefore is neither life-affirming nor natural.

The sanctity of marriage has been accepted for thousands of years across cultures and religions. Marriage was not created by a government, wise man, or religion. It is an institution that existed before governments, and would exist if there were no governments. It has existed despite governmental persecution and humanity’s worst inclinations. It is not a scheme to obtain a government benefit.

The same cannot be said for homosexual marriage. Historically, homosexual marriage never existed as an institution -- even in cultures that accepted and supported homosexuality. Even today, when every media outlet bangs a relentless drumbeat in favor of homosexual marriage, it has lost whenever the issue was on the ballot -- even in liberal states. Homosexual marriage is a political artifice that has been and will be used to attack and silence anyone who believes homosexuality to be intrinsically sinful.

Because the proponents of homosexual marriage can’t win at the ballot box, they have to try and force it on the public with the help of poorly informed and in some cases prejudiced judges. And as part of their strategy, they use municipalities like Miami Shores to puff up their stature and indirectly influence judges by passing resolutions supporting homosexual marriage.

For about the past 15 years, proponents of gay rights have run candidates in Miami Shores. Financed, supported, and selected by outside organizations like SAVE Dade, they run campaigns, never mentioning their intent to push for resolutions supporting gay-rights causes except to their own gay-rights organizations.

Then, once they are in office, they wait for an opportune time, like the middle of summer, when many of our residents are out of town, and with minimal publicity they try to sneak through their resolution. Their primary interest is pushing their gay-rights agenda.

Vice Mayor Jesse Walters and Councilwoman Ivonne Ledesma have demonstrated that they place their gay-rights agenda ahead of the interests of our community. They use their office to further their gay-rights agenda, and God help anyone who gets in their way.

They will happily destroy the Mayor’s Ball, a fundraiser that supports dozens of community organizations, because they didn’t get their way on a nonbinding gay-marriage resolution that has nothing to do with the business of Miami Shores.

They disrespect the right of Shores residents to speak their conscience by labeling anyone who disagrees with them an “extremist” and guilty of “hate speech.”

To Mr. Pilshaw, Mr. Walters, and Ms. Ledesma I say: You are dividing and damaging this community with your political games and accusatory rhetoric. I ask you, when did it become hate speech to say that marriage and the creation of life are sacred?

To my Shores neighbors, I say it is time to stop the divisiveness. Tell the village council to stop playing politics. Tell them to attend to Miami Shores business and nothing more.

Tell council members that it is not appropriate to use their office to pass resolutions representing community support for causes that are not within their jurisdiction and which they don’t know are supported by the community, especially on issues that are a grave matter of conscience for many of our citizens.

Jerome Hurtak
Miami Shores

My letter in reply, sent to the BT:

Mr Hurtak,

I don't believe in "god."  I do, however, believe in marriage.  And whether I believed in "god" or not, I would believe that people should be allowed to marry each other, because that's the commitment they want to make to each other.  Even if they didn't want to have children, and even if they couldn't. Because I don't believe in "god," or the idea that the purpose of marriage is procreation, I also don't expect people who are married to crank out as many children as they can, to satisfy some imagined species-promoting aim.

Further, I believe that what I believe is none of your business, and it should not control or even influence your behavior.  You don't even need to know what I believe.  The fact that I don't believe in "god" should not mean that you can't go to church, and it certainly doesn't mean that I insist that you have a secular wedding, because the pronouncements of religious clerics don't count.  (How could they count?  They're made in the name of something that doesn't exist.) 

As you can probably well imagine, I also believe that what you believe is none of my business, either, and it should not control or even influence my behavior.  Not only do I not need to know what you believe, I'm happier not knowing.

And you're quite right to mention what "[your] faith teaches."  That's exactly what it is: your faith.  It isn't my faith, and it isn't the faith of a lot of other people.  Have you ever heard anyone say "It's a free country?"  It is for you, and it is for the rest of us.

So discuss your feelings about homosexuality with your religious friends.  Don't spew them in the Biscayne Times.  Your religious friends are interested to hear them.  The rest of us are not.

I am not, by the way, a homosexual person myself.  Not that that's any of your business, either.

I do agree with you, however, about one other thing: the non-binding Resolution had "nothing to do with the business of Miami Shores."  It had only to do with the mutual respect and decency of the people who live there.

                                                                                                                                               Fred Jonas

                                                                                                                                          Biscayne Park

Medians and Their Role in Controlling the Flow of Traffic

What a stupid title.  This post has nothing to do with medians, or traffic control.  That being said, it's true that medians have a dramatic effect on traffic control.  You can only go one way when the street is divided by a median.  And if the streets are sufficiently narrow, as ours are, for example, you can't even turn around.  There's no room for a U turn or a Y turn, and you're only allowed to proceed in one direction anyway.  Boy, do medians "control" traffic.

This post is about an ongoing conversation-- debate, really-- I've been having with one of our neighbors.  The debate is about the difference between expressing oneself and communicating here, in this blog, and communicating by using e-mail and a carefully selected recipient list.  My argument is that the blog is a better place to communicate, since it is completely open, anyone can communicate anything, and anyone who does communicate anything will get feedback, expressing either agreement or disagreement.  Our neighbor argues two things.  One is that the blog seems to her in some sense stacked, in that much of the correspondence is in agreement with what the commonest contributors say, and further, that people who respond with disagreement seem to get essentially pummeled, by me.  Her other argument is that there should be nothing wrong with communicating preferentially with like-minded people, and there should be nothing pejorative attributed to people who don't want argument or disagreeing feedback.   These are people who either preach to the converted, or, as I often see it, convert the congregation.

But here's my problem.  If extremists only communicate with like-minded extremists, but all factions have to coexist, then there is an impossible and maladaptive tension that can only result in endless and hopeless conflict.  No one ever learns anything from anyone else, so no one has an opportunity to change his or her mind, and there is not even an opportunity to "agree to disagree," with mutual full understanding of the competing arguments.

I myself have changed my thinking and understanding, and concluding, about things lots of times.  I couldn't do that if I shielded myself from having to know what the other argument was.  And further, the thing that would lead me to shield myself would be my sense of having either a strong mind or a weak mind.  If I thought I had a remarkably strong mind (or does this work out to be a weak mind?), so that I decided I already knew everything there was to know, then I would have neither need nor desire to know what anyone else thinks.  If I was afraid I had a hopelessly weak mind, I would not want to leave myself vulnerable to confounding input, like a dinghy at sea without a paddle, susceptible to what anyone said.  I would want quickly to find a position and cling tightly to it, avoiding having to know any other side, or even information.

When communication is sheltered and controlled, there is no opportunity to make a U turn, a Y turn, or any turn at all, and those following the thread/lead of the communication are not allowed to go in the other direction anyway, even if they could.  What happens at times, though, is that someone may find a way to alter his or her direction, and what I have typically seen happen is that he or she then is dismissed from the travel club or circulation list.

I do think this blog is a uniquely adaptive place for Village residents to communicate about Village-related issues.  It's true that if someone communicates here, he or she, myself included, takes the risk of getting feedback, maybe disagreement.  Is that a problem?  Personally, I only learn from people who disagree with me, or who can tell me something I didn't already know.  What should be concluded about someone who presents himself or herself as knowledgeable about Village matters, and who may want to influence the thinking of others, but who can't tolerate learning something he or she doesn't already know, or being disagreed with?

"A Hard Pill to Swallow"

I suppose that in itself, it's not a particularly good or useful idea to harp on the "sanitation" issue any more.  "What's done is done," one of our neighbors said to me at the time, although that appears not to have been the case, even for the person who said it.  "Moving forward...," as others say.

One opportunity, at least for me, is to ignore the continued sputterings, and to assume they will die out in time.  Which perhaps they will.  But ignoring significant psychological and emotional dynamics is not what I do, especially when they have practical and functional consequences.

In the aftermath of the goodbye-lunch-for-the-departing-employees stunt, one reader wrote several comments to me, and she began by noting what I have used as the title for this post.

Here's the pill that's hard to swallow:

This whole sanitation crusade was structured as a complaint about lack of appreciation for Village employees who are portrayed as valued.  They were further portrayed as having been summarily and heartlessly dismissed, with no acknowledgement or recognition of the important role they filled in the Village.  It was said that in our transitioning to WastePro, we pulled the rug out from under these people, depriving them of their careers and their livelihoods, and we were uniquely cruel to have treated them this way.  That's the assertion.  That's the portrayal.  That's the image and the mascot.

These are the competing realities.  Although no one deprived these Village employees of anything, we have, in fact, done exactly that to other Village employees.  There was a woman who provided janitorial service for Village Hall and the recreation center.  We dismissed her.  One day she had a job, and the next day, she didn't.  We decided to reassign the tasks and save the money.  There was a PW worker named Charles.  We decided his job description, or the way he fulfilled it, was not worth the money, and we ended his employment here.  We did not replace him.  We "retired" a PW worker named Roscoe.  We also "retired" Bernard Pratt.  It was the same deal for these three men as it was for the woman who used to clean the log cabin and the rec center: a job one day, no job the next day.  If you want to know how many Village residents rose up to complain about our treatment of these valued employees, abruptly deprived of livelihoods, the answer is none.  There has also never been a general outcry in opposition to the low wages we have always paid these people.

And the fact is, we didn't deprive our sanitation workers.  We carefully chose an outsource contractor who agreed to hire all of our employees, and pay them better than we did.  And this was to do exactly the same work they were already doing, and in part, in exactly the same place, with better equipment to use.  We provided for these Village employees extremely well, especially compared to how we dealt, without criticism, with other similar Village employees.

Bernard Pratt, by the way, moved back to Georgia to be with other parts of his family.  When his mother died a few years ago, several of us, but not most of the current complainers, went to the funeral.  (It seems Bernard didn't feel like "family," or a "close friend," to those of us who couldn't be bothered to attend his mother's funeral.)  Charles is still around.  He does lawn maintenance, and a number of his customers are Village residents.  I don't know what the cleaning woman and Roscoe are doing. These are Village employees to whom the dreaded eventuality actually happened, and no one made a peep about it.  What happened to the appreciation of, and concern for, our valued PW employees? 

And what about some of our other valued Village employees?   We have improved services by hiring new people.  One is a replacement, of sorts, for Candido Sosa-Cruz, and the others are recreation employees.  They have been routinely slighted by those here who complain of the disrespectful treatment of Village employees.  Their legitimacy, and the legitimacy of their positions, have been questioned, often to their faces.  The disrespect has not been lost on them.  It is they who have been having a bit of trouble swallowing the pill.

Here they are, having applied for and accepted an opportunity to fulfill a position, ready to do and give their best, and bringing a great attitude every day.  In return, they are treated as unwelcome intruders by BP residents.  And these are the very same residents who then bemoan what they portray as the disrespectful treatment of Village employees.  If you had just taken a job in BP, would that be a hard pill for you to swallow? 

What's done is in fact done, and there's no reason at all not to assume it is an improvement.  We should without question be moving forward.  And we can have every confidence the sanitation workers who didn't want to work for WastePro will be moving forward.  If they didn't have a better deal, they would have accepted the generous offer to work for WastePro.

I Always Hated "Seinfeld."

"Seinfeld" was famously, and admittedly, a show about nothing.  So, in its way, was "Curb Your Enthusiasm," which I would also have hated, if I had given myself more than about 10 minutes' exposure.  I couldn't watch any more after the 10 minutes.

I have seen Seinfeld probably half a dozen times, under one circumstance or another.  It was quickly obvious that "there was no there there," and the characters were empty and meaningless people.  They whined constantly and were always working up antipathy about one person or another in their ridiculous lives.  They crabbed about nothing, and their lives were about nothing.  Funny enough, I happened, purely by chance, to see the final episode.  The show had been on for years, people loved it, and I took lots of flak for persistently and insistently hating it.  If you saw the last episode yourselves, you know how I felt: totally vindicated.  See, even the "Seinfeld" people, including Seinfeld, admit this was never about anything, and that they are horrible and empty people.  I was right.  It wasn't just bad attitude or stubborn portrayal of lack of appreciation on my part, as my frustrated friends accused me.  Even Seinfeld admits I got it.  (I would say, I got the joke, except it wasn't funny.)

On my homepage today, there were two articles that struck me.  One was about the college football season, and someone's prediction as to whether there would be upsets today.  Honestly, who cares about someone's prediction of the outcomes to today's games?  If people are interested, they'll watch the games, and they may have their own guesses about results.  They'll find out how the games progress and who wins.  If there are "upsets," they'll experience them for themselves.  What does it add for some imagined expert to predict what will happen?  It's just chatter, designed to fill space on a homepage.  It has no substance.  It's not about anything.

The other article was about some sports journalist's interaction with Derek Jeter, based on having been on an elevator with Jeter's girlfriend in the spring of 2013.  The journalist sent out a Twitter tweet about the elevator ride, commenting that "Realizing you're in the elevator w/ one of Jeter's famous girlfriends is annual spring training ritual.  Today, checked Hannah Davis off the list!"  Jeter got wind of the tweet and complained about it to the journalist.  The journalist was unable to understand what Jeter's gripe was, until Jeter asked "What was she supposed to think when she saw that?"  Then, the journalist got it.  What was intended as filler and innocent fun, and the supposedly excusable chatter of a journalist, had real consequences, even though it had no meaning.

The fact is, it's not always obvious what's about nothing and what's about something.  When people try to fill space with whatever amuses them or is familiar to them, there can be consequences.  It doesn't matter whether "Seinfeld" or "Curb Your Enthusiasm" existed, or whether sports do.  But people get very caught up with both.  And some things really do matter.  You have to be careful how you deal with other people.  You can do real damage, and you should be sure, at least, that that's what you intend.

Just this week, some of our neighbors decided, for whatever were their reasons, to make a statement about the whole "sanitation" matter.  Their method of communicating their statement was to plan a small lunch for the sanitation workers who worked for us, but who did not want to continue to work for WastePro, whatever were their (unexplained) reasons.  So our neighbors provided food of some sort for the PW staff, and they did this at the PW building.  But no one heard about this via e-mail blast from the Village.  It was not in any way structured as a "public" event or gesture.  One of the organizers of this event went so far as to tell Village staff that the PW employees, or the sanitation employees (unclear who was supposedly quoted), did not want Village staff at this event!  This assertion turned out not to be remotely true.  Also, of five Commissioners, only two were invited to the event.  One was an organizer of the event, and the other voted against outsourcing, or perhaps his wife was another of the organizers.  The other three Commissioners were explicitly not welcome to come.  So we didn't.

The question is, what does this, as Derek Jeter might understand, communicate to the PW/sanitation workers, and what does it communicate to the rest of the Village, including the three uninvited Commissioners?  Whatever swipe organizers wanted to take, they insulted the PW/sanitation workers by ignoring their feelings, lying about them (and indirectly to them), and excluding from the celebration Village "dignitaries," who would likely thus appear not to care about the PW/sanitation workers.  This was a political distortion, and it was not true.  But organizers wanted it to be true, and they manipulated everyone to make it appear true.  Village staff, by the way, led by our Manager, heard about the event and refused to be excluded.

This kind of childish bad behavior is divisive.  It is conniving and undermining. It is antithetical to the interests of this community.  And it is very self-serving, in an antisocial way.  "Seinfeld" wasn't really about nothing.  At one point, I heard that the four main cast members got $1M, each, per episode for acting in "Seinfeld."  That's certainly not nothing.  Sports writers get paid, and they get bylines, which reinforce and further their careers.  The question is, what do the Village residents behind the empty masquerade this week get?  I'm asking.

By the way, there's a real and public sendoff for our sanitation workers who chose not to continue their work with WastePro, and it's being held in the recreation center this coming Tuesday, 9/30, at about 2:30 PM.  Everyone is welcome to come, to say goodbye to our employees at the end of their last day as Village employees.

From Village Hall: New Sanitation Schedule, Beginning Next Week (9/29/14). All Recycling Bins Out Next Wednesday!

Soon the collection of GARBAGE, TRASH and RECYCLING will be transitioning.  Please make note of the following changes in the collection schedule for NEXT week, Monday, Sept. 29th through Friday, Oct. 3rd:

MONDAY - 9/29:  GARBAGE ONLY will be picked up for the entire Village.

TUESDAY - 9/30:  TRASH AND YARD WASTE ONLY will be picked up for the entire Village.  Your trash/yard waste container OR pile (not to exceed 2 cubic yards) may be placed out for pick up no earlier than Monday.

WEDNESDAY - 10/1:  RECYCLING ONLY will be picked up for the entire Village using your existing bins.  During the collection, the bins will be retained by Miami Shores Recycling.  Your NEW recycling carts will be delivered throughout the week.

THURSDAY - 10/2:  No collection.

FRIDAY - 10/3:  Waste Pro will begin the NEW, regular collection schedule for GARBAGE and RECYCLING for the entire Village.  Garbage is placed in your own container (40 gallon maximum) either on the CURB or SIDE YARD based on your response to our survey; and Recycling is put in the new rolling cart and placed on the CURB.

Your next collection will then be on Tuesday, October 7th for GARBAGE and TRASH.  Garbage is placed in your own container either on the CURB or SIDE YARD; and TRASH/YARD WASTE is placed in your own container, OR in a pile on the CURB, no earlier than 24 hours before collection.

Going forward, remember these two days:

TUESDAY - GARBAGE & TRASH

FRIDAY - GARBAGE & RECYCLING

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at Village Hall at 305 899 8000, or via e-mail at villagehall@biscayneparkfl.gov.  We are ready and available to assist you during this transition!

Village of Biscayne Park

"80% of Life is Just Showing Up." -Woody Allen

In anticipation of the last Commission vote regarding annexation, I received an e-mail from one of our neighbors, objecting "STRONGLY" to our spending money on a lobbyist to help us succeed in our application to annex, and recommending that annexation be placed on a referendum before the citizens of BP.  This statement raised a number of issues, but one of them was the underlying wish of our neighbor: she did not want us to annex other territory at all.  At one level, this decision could be considered firmly made already, although there is certainly the opportunity for us to withdraw our application.  Our neighbor didn't request that we withdraw the application.  She just wanted us to disable our effort, by not getting necessary help.

Part of my reply to her was to point out, considering her obvious underlying wish, that the Commission that voted to move forward with annexation had advertised its intention, or in one case his availability, to do so when Commissioners were last elected, in December, 2013.  Of the three Commissioners who voted in favor of annexation, all were elected in December.  One was an incumbent who was re-elected, and the other two were newly elected.  Two ran on a platform that included an open commitment to annexation, which was a very hot topic during the campaign and election, and the third said at the time that he didn't yet have enough information.  He did not, however, say he opposed annexation.  Voter turnout was low, and although all candidates got relatively few votes, those candidates whose platform included a clear objection to annexation got the fewest votes of all!  If many people like our neighbor who wrote to me didn't want annexation, they did not come to the poll to vote against it.  They failed to show up when their input mattered most.

This past week, as the conclusion to the matter of choosing a lobbying and outreach firm to represent us in the annexation matter, there were two competing applicants.  One of them was evidently well known to our Mayor, David Coviello, and David was very obvious in his advocacy of this firm.  The fact is, each firm seemed well-qualified, and if David knew something about one of them, leading him to feel strongly that they would be a great choice for us, he was not wrong to "lobby" for them.  On the night when the choice had to be made, representatives of only one of the firms showed up for the meeting.  It was not the firm for which David advocated.  Representatives of both firms were asked to appear.  So four of us, even David, voted to retain the remaining candidate, the one which kept the appointment.  If you don't show up, no matter how good a contender you are, you lose.  Two of our neighbors, by the way, contacted me before the meeting to ask me to support the firm David liked, almost completely because David had great confidence in this firm.

I recently published a blog post inviting people-- more or less pleading with them-- to make a good argument against annexation.  I wanted this debate to be as strong as it can be, since it is not too late to change course, if there is a compelling reason to do so.  I made an argument in favor of annexation.  Of the four responses to the post, two were likewise in favor of annexation, the third asked a question, and the fourth answered the question.  (A fifth response indicated that the questioner was satisfied with the answer.)  The response to the request that people opposed to annexation make a clear and persuasive argument against it was: nothing.  Days have gone by, and there have been plenty of visits to this blog.  The people who circulate underground complaints, criticisms, and arguments, and who agitate for a referendum on the matter, do not show up when they are given a clear opportunity to make their best case.

It may be that Woody Allen understated the effect of just showing up, and the consequence of failing to do so.

Annexation. Chapter Whatever.

The purpose of this post is to stimulate discussion on annexation.  The current Commission has decided to proceed with an application, over the objections of some Village residents.  (Of course, deciding not to proceed would have been, and previously was, over the objections of some residents, too, so it's not clear what should be implied by the presence of objection.)  Some residents feel their opinions have not been "heard," since their preference was not acceded-to, and some feel annexation should be a decision made by vote/referendum.  There is no precedent for this theory, but it has been offered by some of our neighbors.  This theory becomes a slippery slope, and it can lead to a suggestion to scrap the idea of elected representatives, and just have all matters decided by a "town meeting" style of governance.  In any event, to take into account the complaint of some residents who feel their opinions have not been heard (obeyed), and their wish to explain annexation their own way, I am presenting my view here.  I hope that those who disagree will feel more than free to express their views.  As always, they can do so by using the comment section, or they can take a whole post for themselves.  What follows is my pro-annexation argument.  Please give us a good, honest anti-annexation argument, if there is one.



We have applied to the County to annex a mixed use tract between the tracks and Biscayne Boulevard.  CNM applied to annex this tract, too.

Our application was faulty, owing to a poor job done by our planner, and it was returned to be corrected.  In part, the planner was caught between one direction, not to apply, and another, to apply.

Last year, application was simple and very cheap.  The then Commission didn't want to apply, and the simple, cheap opportunity was squandered.  Now, with development in the area in question, the task is much more complicated and considerably more expensive.  But a majority of the new Commission feels annexation is important.  That majority is three Commissioners, all of whom were elected this past December.  Two of them stated openly that they favored annexation.  The third said he hadn't yet decided.  About a month after he was elected, with no more information than he had before, he decided.

Annexation is about two things.  The first is revenue.  Our prior Village Manager, our County Commissioner, and several of the applicants for Village Manager, including all three finalists, openly felt we should annex.  We need, as everyone said, to "diversify" our revenue source.  One of our recent Commissioners, Bryan Cooper, used to rail about the need to diversify.  He used to drone about "biodiversity."  He imagined that if we had a "monoculture" of oaks, we would be vulnerable to any disease or condition that would blight the oaks, leaving us with no canopy at all.  Oaks are nice, and make a nice canopy?  No matter, insisted Bryan.  It's imprudent to try to maintain a monoculture.  Any financial advisor will say the same thing.  It doesn't matter how good a particular investment is.  It's irresponsible to put all of one's eggs in one basket.

I know how Bryan felt about trees, and I don't know what his investment habits are, but he sure couldn't see how dangerous was "monoculture" was when it came to support of the Village.  He encouraged his colleagues to rely on monoculture to provide revenue for the Village, even as monoculture showed increasing signs of failing us.  Very simply, the Village needs adequate revenue, and its one source, residential property and utility taxes, do not provide it.  For a brief space of time, this source seemed to be productive, but only when property values were escalating dramatically.  Then, the bubble burst, the reserve went away, and the Village never did meet its own needs.  It never even met them when it had the money.

Recommending against annexation springs either from failure to understand the Village's fiscal condition, or a concerted intention to force the Village to unincorporate.  Arguments as to why the Village does not need to annex other land use tracts include such assertions as that some Village residents, and all experts, are either lying to the rest of the Village residents or are being manipulative, and that the Village's fiscal condition will somehow correct itself.  The fantasy regarding the latter is that property values will rise again, and that property tax revenue will provide adequately for the Village.  What gets lost in this speculation is that it is very iffy and unreliable, and that at best, the Village never provided adequately for itself anyway, even when property values were in fact rising dramatically and unsustainably.

The other curiosity connected with imagining that rising values will result in rising, and imagined adequate, tax revenues is that such a scheme depends on sales of property.  To benefit from a system like this, we would wind up having to hope a good proportion of our neighbors move away.  This is certainly impolite, at best.  Very recently, I got an e-advertisement from a relator who was proud of a recent sale.  The realtor asked recipients of the ad to see if any other Village residents might be induced to sell their homes (and move away), clearly for the benefit of the realtor.  That's the politically incorrect position in which we would all be placed, if we imagined using increasing tax revenues derived from increased valuations to try to solve our fiscal problems.

The other reason to annex is to control and improve what borders us.  To the extent that some of us complain about what's on "the other side of the tracks," our only opportunity to influence it is to make it part of the Park, and to subject it to our Codes, and our enforcement.

Clearly, annexation changes the Village.  It makes us bigger, and it changes our mission.  We are no longer "100% residential," although the "historic Biscayne Park" upside down triangle is almost 100% residential.  Oddly, many of the people who complain most vociferously about annexing a mixed use tract across the track did not complain either about the existence of the church or the expansion of it to include a school.  Some of them even suggested erecting a building on Village property, and dedicating it for retail space to be rented out.

Ben and Jerry's, that quaint, home-spun ice cream maker, is no longer owned by Ben or Jerry.  They sold out to a Dutch conglomerate, and the CEO is some Dutch guy.  Isn't Ben and Jerry's still Ben and Jerry's to you, when you want good ice cream?  And wouldn't you still think the company somewhat quaint if they owned the Dutch conglomerate, instead of the other way around?  Maybe you do anyway.  Maybe you didn't know they sold themselves to a Dutch conglomerate.  What if they invested, by buying a Dutch conglomerate, so they could continue to afford to make and sell their good old B&J ice cream at a price you can afford to pay?

The fiscal consequences of annexation have received study.  There are projections, and there is no reason not to consider them reliable.  They make clear that with proper maintenance from us, including increases in our police force, there is a sizable net revenue gain to the Village.  The projections, which are estimates, suggest that at a millage of about 9.5, the net gain to the Village is about $550K.  That includes ad valorem taxes, non ad valorem taxes, and a decrement for the expenses of administering the area.

This leads to the last topic related to annexation, and the complaint made by some.  If we annex, the taxes paid by property owners in the annexed area will increase.  Yes, they will.  Services will also increase.  So will prestige.  (One apartment building already calls itself "Biscayne Park Apartments.")  But there isn't much argument against our annexing this tract, out of some difficult-to-understand wish to spare the tax-payers of this tract from paying higher taxes.  They will pay higher taxes anyway.  If we don't annex this tract, North Miami will.  So one way or the other, taxes will increase in this area.  The only question is which municipality, we or CNM, will receive the revenue.  My vote is for us.

If there is a worthy argument to be made against annexation, I very much hope someone will make it.  This blog is an open venue.  If you need a whole post, and you're not already a guest author, let me know.  You will be.

Change is in the Air, and it’s Refreshing!

And I’m not referring to our local weather, which is still bloody hot and humid.

I thought it was about time to comment on, in my opinion, our “New and Improved” Village Commission. After the turnover of Commissioners (and previous Mayor) I have made a better effort to attend Village meetings and other informational gatherings. And here is what I have seen taking place first hand:

• The days of disrespect and disruption on the dais are behind us. And thankfully so! This is not to say that we are beyond disagreement among Commissioners, but there is no longer the element of obvious trivial and unproductive behavior which had plagued our Commission for too long. And as a byproduct of this, resident attendance is somewhat up from previous years. It’s a good starting point.
• As mentioned in the title, change is in the air. This Commission, under the leadership of new Mayor David Coviello and Village Manager, Heidi Shafran, have led to changes that will reduce some of the tax burden to our homeowners while streamlining operations at the same time. And let’s not forget about the successful campaign to secure one million dollars from the State to finally provide for both the (much needed) restoration of our Village Log Cabin and to build a new Administration building. I realize that some of this “change” has not been embraced by all, as is typical, but that does not mitigate the need to move forward with a new vision for our collective future.
• The overall feeling of vitality and direction from our Commission. And THAT is refreshing to me!

However, there are still areas of improvements to strive for:

Meeting Lengths

Commission meetings are still clocking in around the four hour mark. Gulp! We spoke previously of the need to attempt to become more efficient as this will save both time and money… and I believe lead to better community participation. To strive to not have our agenda become bogged down too often with issues that do not affect our Village, etc. I do understand that we have had some unique circumstances this year that added greatly to the time allocations, but still, this is a target issue that we should review and look to achieve in future.

The Elimination of the Distribution of Direct Misinformation

Several residents spoke out about this subject during our Commission meeting last night.  This was due to an email that was circulated to [only a select group] prior to the meeting. This email, which was based on what is now predictable anti-establishment behavior, was twisted, incomplete and lacking of full facts and non-biased discovery. In other words, same ole’ stuff. Once again, all efforts made were to distort facts in an attempt to create controversy and support the views of one resident.  It is by design that these emails are only issued over topics of controversy. It is by design that they are intended to misinform those who, for whatever reason, continue to trust in the author.

We suffered as a community through these, at times, “anonymous attacks” during our last election and over several issues since. Would be battle plans and threats are laid out on issues that don’t even qualify for further consideration. It is akin to nothing more than to “kick the beehive.” This type of disinformation and subsequent community divide is not helpful for our Village and should not be encouraged.

I wrote a post on this blog on June 7^th  addressing this very subject. Excerpts: “It centered on too many of our residents not taking the time personally to do their own due diligence and fact finding. If they had, there would have been far less conflict because they would have understood all of the reasons for this change and agree or not, at least understood the motives. It would have been, could have been, more of a discussion and less of a mob mentality trying to bully the Commission with threats.   We must all understand that there is a divisive element within our Village, and it feeds on the uninvolved and uneducated. They don't want you to know the truth but to rely on "their version" of it, which is typically combative, twisted and incomplete. The best way to combat and diminish this group is to educate yourself! This will expose their true motives and help to eliminate further community divide.  So, my hope is that in future we all will seek information directly from the source and learn all we can about important topics during the proper discussion period. This will require some personal sacrifice of time, but what you will gain in understanding will be your payoff.  

So, in closing, based on the results of our elections and what could be considered dwindling support, it looks as if many have gotten the message. Again, it is a good starting point.

 

Milton Hunter

Biscayne Park Resident

 

 

The "Shred-A-Thon"

It is, at this moment, 10:00 AM on Saturday, September 6, 2014.  The Village is experiencing a "Shred-A-Thon," which will go on until noon today.  A Shred-A-Thon is an event in which representatives and shredding trucks from Iron Mountain come to the Village and shred anything anyone has, for free.  This is our first such event, and it is as yet undetermined whether we will repeat it.

The Ecology Board, under the direction of Richie Strassberg, hit upon the idea of a Shred-A-Thon as a way to help Village residents get rid of unwanted, but sensitive, paper, and expand recycling while we're doing it.  Many of us use the regular recycling service we have purchased from Miami Shores, but no one puts sensitive documents out for disposal that way.  Hence, the Iron Mountain Shred-A-Thon.

Richie called Iron Mountain, which agreed to shred our documents on site (our site) for a fee.  Richie, however, pointed out to Iron Mountain that they provided this service for nothing to Miami Shores.  This is Richie driving a hard bargain, and Iron Mountain was no match for him.  For free it is.

Iron Mountain is mostly a document storage company.  In recent years, its customers have requested destruction, too, so the company has begun such a service.  Documents can be delivered to Iron Mountain (its closest center to us is off the Gratigny Parkway), or they will come to the customer.  The fee per box is the same: $5.  The difference is the $60 fee to come to businesses or residences.  Five boxes will cost you $25, if you bring the five boxes to Iron Mountain.  If the Mountain has to come to you, or Mohammed, it will cost you $85.  For 10 boxes, it's $50 one way, and $110 the other.

If you need this service, or if you and some of your friends do, you can call Susan Koning at 954-775-4448, or you can reach her by e-mail at susan.koning@ironmountain.com.

There are other such services, even ones which will come to you, and they generally have minimums.  Iron Mountain does not.  And some companies will not allow you to come to them.