musimelange. My Deep Apologies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Swales… Who Knew?

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

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

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

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

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

Milton Hunter

Resident   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We Want a Pitcher, Not a Glass of Water

Chuck Ross contacted me to ask me if I had seen what Noah Jacobs wrote about me on Noah's facebook page.  Chuck included a link to Noah's page.

No, I had not seen it.  I'm not a member of facebook.  I have no access to it.  And if that's how Noah wishes to unburden himself, I'm not really interested.  However, having used the link Chuck sent me, and having seen the weird places Noah took himself, and the wrong assumptions he made, and the seemingly deliberate misstatements he uttered, I thought I would use the "comment" opportunity to make some corrections.  I can't do it without access to facebook, access which I don't have.

So I asked Chuck to communicate with Noah, through Noah's facebook page, to let him know that I had an incomplete opportunity to know what Noah said, and no opportunity to respond.  I asked that Chuck suggest to Noah that if Noah had anything to say to me, or to ask me, that he do it in an effective way.  Noah actually addressed at least one of his paragraphs to me by name.  So it's a straw man, to be sure, but he did seem to want to give even the childish impression that he was simulating a conversation.  Another crack Noah made about me was that I was acting "brave" in some of the positions I publicly took.  Well, I guess that makes one of us.

I have asked Noah, as I have asked others, to meet with me, to criticize me, to have a proper and adult conversation.  I'm not getting takers.  All I get is wimpy sniping.  If it's not Noah's facebook page, it's someone else's secret and closed e-mail circulation.  And either one is replete with nonsensical and grossly inaccurate accusations.

I don't expect always to be agreed with.  Hell, I'm not even always right.  But there isn't much I, or anyone, can do with these timid and cowardly swipes.  I'm sure it makes Noah feel better, and like a big boy, when he can bluster on his facebook page.  But it does nothing for or about the areas of disagreement, or complaint.  I don't know about them, and if someone brings them to my attention, I can't respond.  I can't even respond to Noah privately, because Noah has taken the brave and grown up precaution of blocking me from his e-mail.  I don't even know what terrifies him so.

If you see Noah, please send him my way.  I don't bite.  I don't hit.  I don't threaten.  I'll listen to what he has to say.  If I disagree with him, I'll tell him so, and I'll explain myself.  If I come to think he's right, I'll tell him that.  I might even apologize, if I think that in being wrong, I compromised him in some way.  And that goes for anyone else, too.  Anyone who disagrees with me, or who thinks I'm wrong, should tell me so.  Most often, there are valid and differing approaches to a given problem.  Sometimes, one approach is more right than another.  If you're right, and I'm wrong, don't you think I should know about that?  How do you think I'll find out about it, if you don't tell me?  If you put it on facebook, or whisper it to your close friends, I'll never know.  And your failure to correct me will make you complicit in my wrong actions.

"Paralysis By Analysis" Well, More Attempt at Paralysis Than Real Analysis

Steve Bernard has sent out one of his famous e-missives.  He calls it "What's Been Happening in Biscayne Park," and his thrust seems to be to suggest Village residents have been deprived of information.  This is a fairly standard theme for Steve.

Steve goes on to talk about the $1.05M the Village got as a grant from the State, an "unspecified" special assessment, changes to responsibility for maintenance of swales, and an update on annexation.  It would take too much space to reprint Steve's whole screed here, but it you'd like a copy of it, let me know.  I'll send it to you.

In case you're wondering which of these areas was not clearly communicated throughout the Village, rest assured that they have all been clearly communicated.

One Village resident I know has for a long time characterized Steve as providing "paralysis by analysis."  It's a cute phrase, and it does, in fact, describe Steve's approach to things.  It's not so much that Steve's e-mail had this kind of effect.  He analyzed very little, and he paralyzed even less.  What's more to the point is that Steve has had unique opportunities in the Village.  There was a great deal he could have done.  He had the confidence of a lot of people, and he was a Commissioner himself for about five years.  But he didn't do anything.  It was then, when he had influence and prerogative, that he paralyzed by analyzing.

He's fussing now about the log cabin, and the grant to renovate it, but during his time of influence, he never said a word about it.  He made no effort to evaluate the considerable problems with the building, or to recommend any intervention.  And he's an architect.  This might have been right up his street.  Today, he whines about the cost of rehabilitation (a cost that would have been less during the years he had anything to say about it), and how we're going to cover a projected shortfall.  And in case there should be a solution to this problem, Steve proposes to disqualify every possibility.  (This is the "paralysis by analysis" approach.  If people approached this as Steve does, we would not do the renovation at all.  Which is presumably why we didn't do it when he was a BMOC.  Chicken Little was terrified that the sky was falling.  Steve Bernard doesn't seem to care if it does.)

Steve then turns his attention to a proposed assessment, which he calls "unspecified."  But then, he specifies what it is, apparently quoting from the advertised content.  So it's not unspecified, and it's not unadvertised.  It was never clear where Steve was going with this complaint.

Steve's next rant is about consideration of who is to attend to trees in swales: the resident of the property abutting said swale, or the Village.  Steve seems to warn, as if he didn't approve of it, that homeowners might be responsible.  Presumably, he'd like the Village to assume the maintenance burden.  But his long time overscrutiny of the Village budget, and his past efforts to deny adequate fiscal support to the Village, leave uncertainty as to how he thinks the Village will afford the extra responsibility he'd like it to have.

There are several--perhaps many--blog posts about annexation, and Steve's new project of trying to take this decision away from the Commission.  He is currently using Barbara Watts as his functionary for this effort.  As has been discussed already, at quite enough length, neither of them thinks this is a matter for the residents at large, and each of them has an established pattern of disregarding the public when he or she suspects the public will not agree with him or her.  Enough said.

From the Mouths of Babes

My nephew and niece are visiting from California.  I had breakfast with them Sunday, until I had to leave to meet up with Chuck Ross.  Chuck and I set aside time to go door-to-door seeking donations for "The Ballplayer" sculpture.  I saw my nephew and niece again last night for dinner. 


Nephew: So how did it go Sunday, collecting money?

Me: We collected about $350.

Nephew:  That's not bad.

Me:  No, but we need a total of $6000.

Nephew:  How many people live there?

Me:  About 3000.

Nephew:  So why don't you have everyone pay $2 each?


Why, indeed?  Only 20-something, and already a genius.

Politics As Unusual

Some of the big news in the past week has been about W Administration and CIA-backed torture of terror suspects.  This in itself is old news, in that nothing revealed now is new, but what's new is the detailed revelation.  I saw one criticism of the revelation that said it was recently ousted Dems who were unloading all of this, since they're leaving office and have nothing to lose by embarrassing the W administration and even the rest of the country.  The reciprocal concept is that if they still thought they had discretion and reputations to protect, they would not have blown the whistle on W.  That's really a shame.  They would have kept dirty secrets, because it would have been to their personal disadvantages to spill them?

I'm reminded of Noah Jacobs' comment about governments' being "reactive," and I think in many respects, Noah was right.  At some level, governors are afraid of the governed, and of incurring their displeasure.  Governors are afraid to act, because they know that no matter what they do, someone will complain.  And either for the sake of future votes, or for the sake of their narcissism, governors shrink from voters' complaints.  The result is that they often won't act until a matter becomes so desperate that no one, or very few people, can accuse them of anything, since at that point, there is only one thing to do.  It is only then that governors have anything remotely like "courage."

I recently read JFK's Profiles in Courage.  This book was about a series of US Senators, from the early days of the new nation until about the 1940s.  Each of these Senators took bold and unpopular positions, ending the Senator's career in most cases, but positions taken because the Senator thought the position was right and in the best interest of the greater good.

I'm very proud to be a member of a Commission that has on more than one occasion pursued aims and initiatives that although not necessarily popular, were considered necessary and prudent in the greater interest of the future of the Village.  That's the big picture.  The fleeting preferences of individual Village residents are not in center focus.  That approach is essentially pandering, and it is politics as usual.  This Commission has opted to take the broader view, and adopt deeper and more sustaining meanings.

My commonest complaint about the last Commission was that a majority of its members didn't want anything.  Presumably, they wanted their stipends, but they didn't seem to want anything else.  They had no articulated ambitions about their neighbors or about the neighborhood.  The one seeming and partial exception was that they wanted lower taxes, but in that the Village is failing fiscally, this ambition is not considered wanting something.  Unless what they really wanted was for the Village to die.  They never admitted that (except that Bryan Cooper sort of admitted it), so I won't assert it as their overarching goal.

The present Commission does want something.  It wants a Village that is capable of surviving and thriving, and it wants a Village that is better than it was, and will be better than it is.  Because that requires change, and because some people don't like change, some of us appear to be at odds with others of us, or with some residents at large.  It is very possible that this discrepancy will cost some of us our Village jobs, if we want to keep them.  So be it.  If I "leave the Village better than I found it," I will be more than satisfied.  And I'll be more proud than I am already.


"For The Best We Can Be"

It May Have Hit the Fan.

We've done a rough calculation, and we now think we don't have enough in the grant to do all the work of erecting an annex building and renovating the log cabin.  The question is, where will we get the rest of the money?

At the special Commission meeting last night, this question was raised, and preliminary attention was paid to it.  We considered three sources of money.  Well, four.  Unless someone seriously thinks it's five.

Let's take #5 first.  Barbara Watts wonders if we can find even more grants.  The State hasn't suckled us enough.  Someone else should suckle us more.  As far as I'm concerned, 'nuf said.

Bob Anderson's idea (#1) was that we (our Manager) should sharpen our/her pencil more, and find even more dispensible luxury in the budget.  Seven years ago, this was a great idea.  Now, after five years of excellent professional management, it doesn't make sense.  Ana Garcia did sweeping major surgery to Village finances.  The budget was about as tight as it could get.  Heidi Shafran went further.  We are now at the bone, and we cannot meet any but our most life-sustaining needs.  That said, we do have a visible (not generous) reserve which will be about $425K when the new ad valorem revenue starts to filter to us, which is about now.  We'll come to that reserve later.  In the meantime, Bob's proposal was general, or abstract.  He imagines asking the Manager to perform some sort of sleight of hand that will somehow result in a couple hundred thousand more dollars.

Bob's not the only person who looks at Village finances that way.  AJ Gallo, one of our neighbors, typically says the same thing.  But Gallo is specific.  At budget time, he proposes one expense or another he personally considers superfluous.  I get it.  I could look at the budget and do the same thing.  In fact, having spoken to various of our neighbors, I'm convinced that if each of us scoured the budget, we could each find a little here and a little there.  And they wouldn't all be the same superfluities.  If we add them together, we can probably eliminate almost everything in the budget.  We can have really low taxes, too.

But here's the problem.  What AJ Gallo considers superfluous, I, or you, might think essential.  And vice versa.  The fact is, we just created a nice budgetary savings, by outsourcing sanitation, and a number of people were very unhappy about it.  They think we went too far.  And now, we're trying to increase revenue by annexing another area, and again, there are complaints that we are ruining something about the Village.

So I think Bob is very wrong.  I think we've reduced everything that can reasonably be reduced, and any other effort gets too much blowback.  And besides, even attempting further reductions would not raise nearly enough money to cover the imagined shortfall for the construction projects.

Roxy Ross, David Coviello, and, to some extent, Bob Anderson thought we should borrow the shortfall (#2).  Here's my concern about that.  The Village doesn't make money.  It has no way to make money, other than to tax its residents.  So if we don't have the money now, we can't get it and the added debt service in the future, except by taxing ourselves higher.  If that's what we're to do, then let's just do it now, once.

My thinking is to use that $425K we have in reserve, and pay for the rest of the project ourselves (#3).  We actually have the money, and this is a good use for it, since we all agree to do the work.  Bob Anderson, and possibly unspoken others, are afraid to tap the reserves, but we have no use for them.  I would be delighted to use them for something else, like median improvement or any of a number of other projects, but it appears this is not going to happen.  So let's apply it to the annex/rehab.

David Coviello's other suggestion was that we perhaps hold off on part of the project, which will allow us to spend $126K less up front.  But we all agree we should ultimately spend it to complete the task, and Dave must have been thinking we would somehow eventually find the money in the future.  And I agree with Dave.  In fact, my other suggestion (#4) is that if we delay, we step up our efforts to succeed with our annexation attempt, and use the revenue from the annexed tracts to finish the construction job.

But the fact is, it's not necessary to delay, it's not necessary to beat an emaciated budget to death, it's not necessary to borrow money we can't exactly repay, and it's not necessary to wonder who else in the world, besides the citizens of Florida, love us and want to provide for us.  We can do it ourselves.  And in my opinion, we should.

What, More Bashing? If They're Not Beating on Gays and Lesbians, They're Beating on Me. Letters in Biscayne Times.

I Liked Biscayne Park -- Until I Saw that Letter from Fred Jonas
In reference to the letter to the editor by Commissioner Fred Jonas of Biscayne Park (“Jerome, I’m Happier Not Knowing What You Believe” (November 2014): At first I thought, why should I take the time to share my thoughts relating to a heated topic in Biscayne Times this Veterans Day, as I and my family have proudly served and are still serving this country? Then I thought, should a commissioner have actually responded the way Mr. Jonas did?
I grew up in Miami have seen individuals choose politics as their calling, but a politician is supposed to serve his community and should not be biased. Comments should be made in a professional and positive manner. Mr. Jonas, just as you asked the writer, Jerome Hurtak of Miami Shores, to keep his comments to himself, I ask you to keep your negative comments to yourself.
Because you are a commissioner of Biscayne Park, I ask you to represent your community in a positive light. I recently thought of buying a property in your city, but after reading your letter, I will stay in the City of North Miami.

Yessenia GonzalezProud Resident of North Miami

Jerome Hurtak to Fred Jonas and Peter Konen: Thanks for Making My Point!
I welcome Mr. Konen’s and Commissioner Jonas’s responses to my letter to the editor (“The Grave Matter of My Conscience”) in the October Biscayne Times. They prove my point.
Mr. Konen implies that I’m a bigot for opposing gay marriage. As proof he offers a hypothetical man and woman who married with no intention of having children. According to Mr. Konen, there is a “clear parallel” between his hypothetical man and wife and a homosexual couple.
But the situations are not parallel. The hypothetical man and wife can change their minds (and hearts) and have children; the homosexual couple can’t.
The reason the homosexual couple can’t have children has nothing to do with whether people who oppose gay marriage are bigots. It is a simple fact of life. But to proponents of gay marriage, facts, logic, and reason don’t matter because they have a strategy to call anyone who opposes gay marriage a bigot as a means of intimidating and silencing opposition.
Commissioner Jonas’s letter presents the most tortured of non sequiturs. He repeatedly and emphatically says that what he believes is none of my business -- and then he proceeds to publicly state what he believes. Well, if what you believe is none of my business, why are you telling me and the rest of the world what you believe?
Commissioner Jonas, you are a public officeholder, and it does matter what you believe because you are making decisions that directly affect the lives of others, and what you believe affects the decisions you make.
Unfortunately, Commissioner Jonas doesn’t stop there. He continues from that rather confused point to suggest that my views should not be allowed in Biscayne Times. Commissioner Jonas will graciously allow me to discuss my views on homosexuality with my “religious friends” because he says this is a “free country,” but he warns, “Don’t spew them in Biscayne Times.”
A public officeholder suggesting that a citizen shouldn’t comment in a public forum because he doesn’t like those views should cause the entire community concern. But that is the norm for proponents of gay marriage because, as I stated in my original letter, 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.
Thank you, Mr. Konen and Commissioner Jonas, for proving my point.
Proponents of gay rights don’t want anyone to be able to speak against their agenda. They fanatically pursue their own cause and are intolerant of those who differ -- which, by the way, is Webster’s definition of the word “bigot.”
One final thing. Since Mr. Konen likes hypotheticals, I offer him the following: Should bisexuals be allowed to marry two or more people?

Jerome HurtakMiami Shores

 

 

My Reply:                                                                                                                                               

 

Dear Ms Gonzalez and Mr Hurtak,

Thank you very much for your comments and your reactions.

Biscayne Park is a unique community, and we like to think of ourselves as uniquely tolerant, too.  I have neighbors and friends here of different races, different religions, and different ethnicities and cultural backgrounds.

I have friends and neighbors who are single, who are married with children, who are married and chose not to have children, who are married and could not have children, and who are gay or lesbian.  I even have friends and neighbors who are gay or lesbian and who do have children.  (Mr Hurtak, contact me privately, and I'll explain how something like that can come to be.)

My friends and neighbors, and constituents, in Biscayne Park know they can count on me completely to uphold this diversity among us, and to confront people with attitudes like yours.  I am a faithful protector of the rights, the liberty, and the personal styles of my friends, my neighbors, and my constituents.

No, Ms Gonzalez, it seems likely you would not like it here.  For whatever are your reasons, you are offended at the idea that an elected official would go to bat for you.  And aggressively so.  And it would not suit you to live in a community where one of your neighbors, or an elected official, didn't agree with you about something, or expressed him- or herself in a way of which you didn't approve.  Luckily for you, all of your neighbors and elected officials in North Miami get it just right.  Your level of intolerance and dismissal would leave you unhappy here.

And Mr Hurtak, you wouldn't like living as we do here, either.  We are far too tolerant.  We accept everyone.  We don't insist people fulfill someone else's concept of a "purpose" of marriage.  The purpose of marriage is commitment between people who love each other.  We don't try to construct some other fantasy.  We do not frown on people whose affections are same sex, and we do not frown on people whose affections are other gender.  Our affection, mine and that of the community, is for all of them.  

 

Fred Jonas

Commissioner, Biscayne Park