Harvey Bilt Takes Some Initiative. Sort Of. Big Mama Lets Him. Sort Of. Harvey Offers "A Step" Toward Addressing the Feral Cat Problem. Well, No.

It's almost over now.  The little Villagers are still allowed to complain about things, for a firm three minutes, but the Commission's hand around Villagers' throats no longer provides even for the fake dignity of a response.  It's no longer on the Agenda.  And Tracy "Big Mama" Truppman now dictates the motions she wants made: "Do I hear a motion to say...?"  One of the bobbleheads-- almost exclusively Harvey Bilt, last night-- dutifully gives Big Mama what she wants.  If the other bobblehead doesn't second it, Big Mama does it herself.  For the second time in a row, bobblehead Will Tudor wasn't there.  We're not given an excuse.  He's just not coming.

Nothing on last night's painfully weak Agenda failed to get way too much discussion.  The vast majority of it was rambling.  It all seemed to be speakers who wanted to listen to themselves talk.  Fortunately, the attorneys acted as a tag team-- one had to leave, and another relieved him-- so we were never without an attorney to pay.

One Agenda item that got some advance attention was Harvey Bilt's proposal about the open feeding of wild cats.  Dan Schneiger, who was beside himself, and Mac Kennedy thought they understood that Harvey was proposing the more liberal feeding of wild cats.  That's wild cats roaming Biscayne Park, which is one of our really bad scourges.  Harvey smirked and shook his head, as if to say they were all washed up on this one, but Dan and Mac were so incensed that they couldn't stay for the discussion, which was a couple or more hours away.  But the time finally came.  And Harvey clarified.

No, Harvey reassured, he was not expanding the concept of the open feeding of feral cats.  Just the opposite.  He was limiting it.  From just any-old-where to the back yard.  Where no one has to see it.  I don't know if Harvey has a pet cat, and if he "keeps" it outside, but he seems not to understand much about outdoor cats.  A couple of people tried to explain to him that "wild" cats are wild, and they don't confine themselves to back yards, so Harvey finally offered that his proposal was a "step" toward controlling the problem.  And Big Mama agreed with him.  Big Mama says she has or had cats.  But she also complained about what she alleged were problem feral cats somehow associated with her neighbors.  So you'd think she would know better.

Let me explain, Harvey and Big Mama.  The reason they call feral or wild cats feral or wild is because they're feral or wild.  If you feed them, they'll eat what you give them.  In between times, they cull the profuse and unruly avian population of the Village.  And they leave, as Mac Kennedy so indelicately put it, "cat shit" all over the Village.  And these are cats we're talking about.  They're not horses.   They don't stay tidily in your back yard.  If you feed them behind your house, and they're interested enough to eat what you leave for them, they're there for a few minutes.  Then, they're all over the neighborhood. where no one wants them.  Tragically, I've been watching two large dogs for the past month.  I walk them four times a day.  I have never seen feral cats eating in the open.  But I spend a tremendous amount of time and energy restraining those two large dogs from chasing all the feral cats we encounter.  Do you want to know how many we see?

Harvey, and Big Mama, do you remember the experiment called "smoking sections" in restaurants?  Airplanes, psychotically, too.   It was someone's idea that some people would smoke, and the smoke would stay where the smokers were, and not affect anyone else.  We're talking here about smoke.  It's like feral cats.  The big difference is that smokers control how much smoke there is.  But the cats "control" how many cats there are.  And it looks like cats are more addicted to making more cats than smokers are to making more smoke.  Do you want to know how many cats there are?

Harvey and Big Mama, if you really want to control the feral cat scourge in BP, either get firmly behind a sterilization program, or have them killed.  Feeding them in someone's back yard, and pretending they're now out of sight, is so naive as to be childish (except even children know better than that).

Two Different, But Equally Magnificent, Ways to Spend an Evening

I've written before about musimelange.  This is the creation of Anne Chicheportiche, a French-born violinist who lives with her husband and son in Bay Harbor Islands.  Anne is active in the local classical music scene, and she occasionally travels (well, not so much any more, with the young lad and #2 on the way), as part of her career as a professional violinist.  But on the side, about 5-6 years ago, Anne began a new venture, which she calls musimelange.  She puts on four events each year, beginning in January, and the venue is a unique place called the M Building.  (I don't know, so don't ask.)  The M Building is on the corner of NW 2nd Avenue and 29th Street.  I sometimes think the M Building was constructed to be a house, but I'm really not sure.  Some woman owns it now, and she rents it out for various small functions.  It would be a really cool place to have a wedding, and they've had them.  The M Building is decked out in weird art, and it has a few rooms on the ground floor.  There's a second story, but no one can go up there.  Yeah, part of the mystery.

Anne's evenings start at 7:30.  When you get there, you sign in.  If you didn't pay yet, it's $65.  If you paid in advance, it was $55.  If you subscribed to the whole four-event season, it's $50 per event.  Then, you mingle for a while, having excellent cheese and spectacular bread (I think it's Zak's), and eavesdropping on all the conversations in French.  Unless you came with someone, or you know someone, or you just feel like meeting someone, in which case you can have your own conversation in your own language.  At some point, usually around 7:45, the doors open, and you go in to the back room.  There's more funky art back there.  That room is like a parlor room, and it has an appendage that is a small kitchen and an island for prepping or serving.  It's at that island that the caterer for the evening (some French chef Anne knows) provides bites.  There are a few or several different offerings.  A bite in itself isn't filling, but a succession of them can be.  And you can have as many as you like.  While you do, you can take another step out the open sliding door to the patio and back yard, where all the wine is served.  Likewise, you have as much as you like.  Wine is provided by Barton & Guestier, and it's always good.  So this goes on for a while, as you continue to eavesdrop or have your own conversation-- possibly with the person you just met-- until "Act 2" begins.  Act 2 is the concert.  There are chairs set up, in the parlor room and on the patio, and couches that are always there, and one end of the parlor room is reserved for the musicians.  Sometimes, there's a piano there, if that's the ensemble for that evening.  And you listen to a concert.  It's usually some version of classical, but occasionally Anne veers in a slightly different direction.  Twice, she had Corky Siegel, who plays jazz and blues harmonica, and he sometimes plays with classical ensembles.  Wonderful stuff.  For the coming concert, on February 12 (they're always on Mondays), it's pianist Jim Gasior and his frequent musical companion, singer Wendy Petersen, doing pure jazz.  So you sit and enjoy.  The music has never been less than spectacular.  And then, when the program has been played, you meet and talk to the performers, and you have "Act 3," which is dessert.  Sometimes, it's the same chef who produced Act 1, and sometimes, it's a dessert chef.  But it's always top shelf sweets, and, as with Act 1, you take as much as you like.  These are very highly memorable evenings.  They're like having someone cook you gourmet food, and give you a concert, in your house.  No, it's not your house, and that fact will be clear to you when you try to park, but it's a very intimate and homey setting for all the high class food and wine you like, and a great musical presentation.  If you want to know more about musimelange, or arrange to attend, you can go to their site: musimelange.com.

Another way you can spend an evening is by going to downtown Coral Gables on the last Saturday of any month.  Bellmont Spanish restaurant is at 339 Miracle Mile.  Bellmont is owned by Sergio and Claudia Romero (it's been there about four years now), and it's mostly just a Spanish restaurant.  Well, when I say "just"...  The Romeros say their food is traditional Spanish.  I would say it's upscale and a gourmet version of Spanish food.  I love Spanish food, and this is the best I've had.  One of my friends who attended the Bellmont event with me once has travelled in Spain, and she says it's the best Spanish food she's ever had, too.  Sergio and Claudia built this restaurant.  Literally, up to a point.   The room is a combination of rustic and modern, incredibly appointed, and Sergio did it all himself.  Not only did he choose everything in that room, but he constructed some of it himself, too.  And he's the chef.  How he turns out those meals is frankly beyond me.  Bellmont has a normal menu, and I'm told that the usual price for dinner is about $35-$40 per person.  They also have a Miami Spice menu for the Miami Spice price of $39 prix fixe for dinner.  For the evenings I'm describing to you, the price is $69.  It used to be $59, but it was embarrassing to get all this for $59, so I'm glad they raised the price.  Alcohol, by the way, is not included at Bellmont.  But they have a very nice list, if you want to add wine to your meal.  These evenings start at about 7:30.  You can come when you like, but the show starts at 9:00, and it's nicer if you're not eating while you're enjoying the show.  (It would be even nicer if other people were not eating, while you're enjoying the show, but you don't always get that courtesy from them.)  Anyway, the meal is this:  there are two appetizers, and you get both of them; there are about five choices of main course, and you pick one (it doesn't matter which one you choose, since they're all unbelievable); there are two desserts, and you get both of them, too; I forgot to mention the bread, which comes from who knows where (OK, fine, I surrender: there is a heaven).   As for what Sergio creates, I really don't know where he gets the inspiration for these dishes.  Many of them are unique, and even the more common ones (filet mignon, paella, lamb chops) are done in an unusual and gourmet style.  One of my friends who loves steak had the filet mignon, and he said it was the best steak he ever had.  Then, at 9:00, the show starts.  This collaboration between restauranteur and performers has been going on at Bellmont for about two years.  A stage is set up at one end of the restaurant floor.  The offering is flamenco.  It's either Ballet Flamenco La Rosa, or it's Siempre Flamenco.  Occasionally, it's people from each organization performing together as a, um, melange.  (Sorry, Anne.)  This is a great show, and Ballet Flamenco La Rosa and Siempre Flamenco are excellent local companies.  The first set ends at about 10:00, and you're welcome to stay for the second set after the break.  If this interests you, you can go to their site at bellmontrestaurant.com.  If you do go, you'll see what I mean about wondering how anyone survived providing that level of food, and a flamenco show, for $59.  Well, at least it's $69 now.  It'll be more than that by the time they add in the tax and tip, but it will be money very well spent.  Go have fun.

The Domination Seems to Be Complete.

Last night's Commission meeting had trouble getting started.  It got very bogged down in the most unexpected of places: the opportunity for Commissioners to add or withdraw Agenda items.  There was something strange about that discussion.  It was both wide-ranging and aimless, rambling, meandering, and being generally tangential.  Somehow, parts of the Manager's report, and the Police Chief's report, wound up appearing in the otherwise simple, few second opportunity for a Commissioner to say he or she wanted to add a topic, or withdraw one already in the Agenda.  It was curious what this seeming delay or dodge was about.  It seemed almost as if Commissioners wanted to avoid something.

And then, there was Public Comment.  Oh.  Village resident after Village resident complained, to and about Tracy Truppman, and the Commission that apparently couldn't.  Some complained that the Village was spinning its wheels, not moving or improving itself.  Some said there was no meaningful Code enforcement, and that the appearance and condition of Village properties were suffering for it.  Others criticized Tracy personally, including of committing Charter violations.  And of course, there was mention of Tracy's simply personally commandeering the Village and what is usually its government.  Tracy had only one friend last night, at least among non-Commission Village residents.  Jeff Jones angrily countered written comments from Milt Hunter, who reportedly submitted a damning (of Tracy) letter or blog post, Jeff offering opinions of his own.

The next section of the meeting, which was now over two hours old (up to this point in a normal meeting takes about 20-30 minutes, depending on Presentations) was set aside for Commission responses to resident comments.  Oh, Tracy.  She sat out for a little while, letting Roxy Ross field much of the material, and then, Tracy pounced.  She deftly parried a small collection of the complaints, most of which were directed at her.  Her tactics mostly focused on ignoring those accusations she didn't feel like addressing, simply denying others, and lying about the rest.

One focus mentioned by a few Village residents concerned Tracy's (mis)management of what amounts to hurricane Irma damage.  One particular was Tracy's having taken it upon herself to dramatically increase the amount of money the Village was requesting in aid from the state.  Although Tracy, or any other elected representative, should never do such a thing, in this case, it mattered even more, because we have to match what we're given.  The more Tracy requested, the more we would have to come up with as a match.  Although Tracy had a dodge for that, too.  But the point is that Tracy's flim-flam included the concept of urgency and emergency, for example that she had only 48 hours to make an application to the state.  (One of the accusations Tracy ignored, and not for the first time, is why she didn't call an emergency meeting.)  So part of Tracy's footwork here was to claim she had announced this at a previous meeting (wrong).  But there was an available cure, even last night.  Tracy-- who else?-- hit on the idea that the Commission could retroactively approve, by vote, what she falsely alleges they approved in general conversational consensus whenever she alleges this conversation that never took place took place.

During the discussion of whether or not Tracy committed Charter violations, attorney John Hearn reminded that the first place a Commissioner's alleged Charter violation would be considered would be in the Commission itself.  Roxy Ross pointed out that the current Commission could not be relied upon to give honest consideration to whether or not Tracy committed a Charter violation.  Tracy owns these stooges.  They're not going to criticize her.  And we saw what Roxy meant.  Tracy quickly put together a motion that her application to the state for over $1M was agreed upon by the Commission, and it was in the mouth of puppet Harvey Bilt that Tracy put these words.  The second came from the mouth of puppet Jenny Johnson-Sardella.  Tracy quickly rammed through a vote, with no discussion.  And the vote was quickly 3.  Tracy didn't need to know what Roxy Ross' vote was, and she didn't ask.  But Roxy did take the slightly belated opportunity to ask her Commission colleagues if they had seen the document they just voted to approve.  The dumb, deer-in-the-headlights looks said it all.  So the vote was rescinded, whatever that meant, and we took a "five minute" (about 20 minutes) break, so Harvey and Jenny could actually look at what they just agreed to.  If you want to know if either of them sat at the Commission table, looking at this one page, the answer is no.  Everyone scattered.

And when we reconvened, the room was empty.  All of the non-Commission Village residents had gone home.  All but Chuck Ross, Linda Dillon, and I.  What, really, was the point in staying?  Tracy and  the bobbleheads proved Roxy right, they quickly reconfirmed their original votes, and they moved on to whatever nonsense is now Tracy's driveway Ordinance, although they had trouble taking that up, either.

Everyone now gets it.  Tracy does whatever she wants.  She says whatever she wants.  She now controls three other Commissioners, and whatever sits in the suits of the Village Manager and the Village Attorney.  Poor Janey Anderson.  Now she says she no longer supports Tracy?  Where was that insight on voting day?

Iguanas Don't Grow on Trees, You Know. They Fall Out of Them, Though.

This is a minor public service announcement.  Reportedly, iguanas climb trees, for some reason.  I don't know if they're looking for food, or what.  But up the trees they go.

The other thing about iguanas is that they are not tolerant of cold.  It hypnotizes them, or makes them temporarily sleep or hibernate, or something.

The seemingly bizarre result of these two things about iguanas is that on cold mornings, they can sometimes be found on the ground beneath trees, having fallen out of the trees, and appearing to be dead.  And sometimes, they are dead.  They could have died in their sleeps, or they could have died from impact, when they fell.  But sometimes, they're not dead.  They just haven't reawakened, because it didn't warm up enough yet.

So if you're out walking, or driving, and you see an iguana, lying still and very possibly on its back, don't bother it.  Maybe move it off the road, if it's on the road.  It might awaken, when the temperature goes up.  If it doesn't awaken, because it really is dead, some other animal will take care of the remains.

It's Time We Changed Our Codes About the Medians

Almost everything in the Village is controlled by Codes, and our public spaces are no exceptions.  Although some Village residents complained that we did not hold ourselves as a municipality to the same standards that our Codes say applies to individual residences, the Codes are the same everywhere in the Village, and they're enforced the same everywhere.

The Code for the medians is simple.  It has one main feature.  No one can park or drive on the medians.  Except...  People can request, and can be approved for, temporary parking either for themselves or on behalf of someone doing work at their house, assuming the work vehicle can't park on the homeowner's property, driveway, or swale.  Also, no one can drive on the medians, and no one can dump garbage on the medians.  Some, but not all, of the medians have signs saying you can't drive on them.

But here's the problem.  First of all, we do in fact allow temporary parking on the medians, with permission.  Second, there are generally not waste receptacles on the medians, except for a few of them that have animal waste stations, and like it or not, people clearly do dump debris in the medians.  Third, and perhaps most dispositive, and conspicuous, the medians are not generally developed in any meaningful way.  There are plantings on all of them, and those plantings are mismatched trees.  The canopy is spotty and incoherent, and there is no understory.  The ground cover is ratty grass, weeds, and open dirt.  So anyone who assumed that it was OK to drive along medians to pass a car stopped in the street, or over them to make a U-turn, or dispose of something in them, would have little to suggest this kind of usage was unwelcome.  Unless there's one of the very infrequent keep-off-the-median signs.  Those signs say something, but the evident condition of the medians doesn't seem to support the message written on the signs.  "Keep off the medians?"  Why?

Now, at risk of harping unbearably, I will say that I have made a kind of campaign of wanting the medians in BP to be more respectable, and some kind of credit to the Village, apart from the mere presence of them, but I've realized I'm talking to myself.  I have made very many public pleas for median upgrades, I have leaned hard on the Parks and Parkways Board, and I have even pleaded with the Commission, even when I was a member of  it, to create a median plan (really to task P&P to create a plan), so the Village, or even interested and ambitious Village residents, could begin proper development.  And all of my pleas have fallen on very clearly deaf ears.

I'm the only one who appears to be interested in this.  And I'm only one of about 3000 people who live in the Village.  And most of the people who live here own property here, just as I do, so they're potentially, or theoretically, as motivated as I am, and for the same reasons.  But very clearly, they're just not.

The medians look awful (I haven't heard anyone who disagrees with that), and the vast, vast majority of VBP residents have no meaningful problem with that.  Or if they wouldn't, in a perfect world, prefer that the medians look awful, they're more unwilling to do anything about it than they are to tolerate it.

So I think we should change the Codes regarding the medians.  We should take away the few keep-off-the-median signs, allow people to park or drive on them (they're a convenience to use for U-turns, if you can't be bothered to go all the way to the end of the block), and allow dumping of debris there. If it's sort of in piles, WastePro can pick it up on Tuesdays and Fridays.  What we've left ourselves at this point is the worst of both worlds: medians that look terrible, but we can't even make them useful.

Smug, and Snug.

Last night's Commission meeting started out in an interesting way.  We had a presentation from FPL, about replacing the lamps we have with LED ones, and Tracy Truppman properly suggested that we take all issues related to that presentation back to back.  One entry was part of new business, which would have come at the end of the Agenda, so it was more efficient, and more respectful of the FPL guy, to address it early.  And then, there was Public Comment.

Several Village residents spoke, and almost all of them addressed the same problem: Tracy's having single-handedly (mis?)managed the matter of how to dispose of hurricane debris, and in detail how to apply to the State and FEMA for help.  The Commission had previously agreed to apply for a state grant of about $400K, and Tracy, either on her own or in concert with our Manager, Krishan Manners, decided to request about $1.2M.  Everyone who had anything to say about this criticized Tracy for taking up this matter alone, without consulting the rest of the Commission.  Tracy's excuse, at the time and reiterated now, was that there was a "state of emergency" (which she had also single-handedly declared, but didn't clearly announce to anyone), and a very tight deadline for applying for state aid, and Krishan was out of town for a couple of crucial days, and all she did was make a back-up phone call to the state, and somehow, that this matter was either entirely proper or easily understood and excused.  And to help her position, she threw Krishan under the bus.

What was even more interesting about this matter was that Krishan unwaveringly accepted his position under the bus.  Tracy overstepped, and Krishan apologized.  I have to say here that I think I may have been wrong about something Tracy did in the past, and why she did it.  She fired Sharon Ragoonan, seemingly without consulting anyone else (except we all believe she has active illegal conversations with her stooges outside Commission meetings), and I thought the firing was at least indirectly about Sharon.  I thought it was that Tracy didn't like Sharon, for whatever were Tracy's unrevealed reasons, and that she resented that she, Tracy, had nothing to do with Sharon's hiring, so she wanted to be rid of what she didn't choose and couldn't control.  But now, I think I might have made a mistake.  Now that I've watched Tracy over time, and seen what she does, and how certain other people (Krishan and John Hearn) react, I think she fired Sharon as a signal.  I think she did it to show what power she had, and to let Krishan and John know that they will do her bidding, or else.  And both of them seem to have gotten the message.

Tracy thinks Village government is all about her, and she has reassured herself that a majority of the current Commission will support whatever she says and wants all the time.  Which they have shown they will.  In that sense, Tracy is an autocrat.  She's' a dictator.  She's a tryant.  And one of the first rules in autocracy/dictatorship/tyranny 101 is to declare a state of emergency, so the budding autocrat/dictator/tyrant can expand him- or herself into the vacuum thus created.  Done.  Some Village residents last night said that even if Tracy had thought a "state of emergency" existed, she should have called an emergency meeting, so the other Commissioners could share in making decisions.  One person pointed out that Tracy appears to have declared a state of emergency a day or so before the actual hurricane.  Tracy never responded to any of this, except to implicate Krishan.  She did not otherwise try to defend what she did (which everyone who addressed the matter seemed to consider indefensible anyway), and she didn't apologize.  She ignored all of it, apparently because she really doesn't care.  She does whatever she wants, and no one has the nerve, or whatever, to stop her.  We listened to this throughout the evening, when Jenny Johnson-Sardella kept repeating her favorite phrase--"I concur,"-- Harvey Bilt agreed, too, and Will Tudor launched himself repeatedly into aimless and self-contradicting ramblings that seemed almost always to end in some kind of endorsement of whatever Tracy wanted.

Another example of this pathetic Commission uselessness had to do with a proposal from Roxy Ross.  Roxy introduced as new business a request that the Village write an Ordinance outlawing "conversion therapy" in people not yet of majority.  I will be entirely candid here to say that at first, I thought this was a ridiculous use of Commission time or the Village's time.  And money, since Roxy's proposal was to create an Ordinance.  Roxy never asked me about this (even though I'm a psychiatrist), and I never discussed it with her.  When the matter was introduced as New Business, and Roxy explained whence she was coming, I saw it in an entirely different light.  I saw why Roxy was right.  First, although my initial reflex was to say to myself that it made no sense to outlaw a professional business practice in a municipality that doesn't have any businesses, Roxy pointed out quite correctly that the Village does in fact have businesses.  For all I know, it might have lots of them.  And it is entirely possible that one of those "home" businesses is one or another form of psychotherapy.  So "conversion therapy" might be happening in the Village right now.  Roxy also pointed out that the legislature of the State of Florida recently refused to outlaw such therapy, but that there is a growing number of municipalities that have created exactly those Ordinances outlawing this "therapy."  Roxy's thinking was that it did societal good to increase the number of municipalities that had these kinds of Ordinances on their books, to pressure the State.  So once Roxy explained this, I could see that she was right, and that the Ordinance she proposed was the right thing for us to do.

But Tracy and the two stooges who were left (Harvey had been present by mobile phone, the reception had been useless, and he had dropped out of the meeting) couldn't see that Roxy was right.  Their embarrassing argument was that Ordinances cost money (a few hundred dollars, all tolled), so we shouldn't use Village money for this one.  And this from Tracy Truppman, who wastes vast amounts of Village money, hiring our Attorney to be present at the meetings where Tracy can't shut up.  But Tracy got stooge Johnson-Sardella and stooge Tudor to agree that an Ordinance was too expensive, and we should do the free Resolution instead.  And here's the difference.  Tracy herself (how bizarre could this get?) pointed out that she has heard of young people literally being killed in these "conversion therapy" exercises.  In theory, Tracy might be expected to think it's a bad idea, both to go to extraordinary lengths to stamp out homosexuality in a minor, and certainly to kill them over it.  We're talking about Tracy Truppman here.  The result of a Resolution against this "therapy," when a minor complains, or is killed, is that the Village can then say we really wish the parent and therapist hadn't done what they did.  We had suggested they not.  The result of an Ordinance against such pseudotherapeutic misbehavior is that the act is illegal, and can be prosecuted.  But in Tracy's relentless crusade to frustrate everything that Roxy suggests, Tracy acts not only against the best interests of Village residents, but even against her own best interests.

And she gets away with it, every time, because she has three stooges who blindly "concur" with any nonsense Tracy does or says.

An Attempt to Share Values

The way it was told to me, it started with Janey Anderson, seemingly representing some others of our neighbors, approaching Mac Kennedy.  Mac had been unloading on "Nextdoor" about the Village's failure of "vision," and Janey reportedly contacted him to ask him to present his idea of vision, to a small group of BP residents with whom Janey was apparently having a parallel discussion.  So Mac met with the group, several times, and all of them composed a document to share with the neighborhood, by sharing it first with the Commission.

For what it's worth, the group Janey represented came to include Linda Dillon, Nicole Susi, Brian McNoldy, Brad Piper, and Art Gonzalez.  Mac was included in the final grouping, as was Dan Schneiger.  I'm told their strategy to go public with this was to divide themselves up into single person or two-person task forces, and each person or pair of people would approach a Commissioner.  So one or two of them would approach Tracy Truppman, one or two Roxy Ross, one or two Jenny Johnson-Sardella, one or two Will Tudor, and one or two Harvey Bilt.  The purpose of these outreaches was to inform the assigned Commissioner of this group effort, offer to explain it, and ask each Commissioner to co-sponsor a presentation of it.

Here are the two problems.  First, only Roxy Ross would even listen, look, or discuss the matter with whoever approached her.  The other four Commissioners ignored, blocked, or refused any effort to talk to him or her about it.  Apart from Roxy, we're talking about four new Commissioners who ran explicitly, and reassuringly, on a promise that now, with a new posse in town, Village residents would finally-- oh, yes, finally!-- be listened to.  There would be no more ignoring them, not listening to what's important to them, and "legislating" in spite of them.  Well, we've already been given several doses of what the fulfillment of that promise looks like, and several of our neighbors have just gotten a booster.  The message was clear: drop dead; no one cares what you think, or how much effort you might have expended; and most certainly no one cares about your vision for the Village, or your suggestion that anyone else form a vision for the Village; we only care what we think.  That was problem number one.

Problem number two was what happened to Roxy Ross' placement of this matter on the Agenda for the Commission meeting.  This group of new Commissioners has already deflected a suggestion for a visioning session (an exercise all or most Commissions do at the beginning of a new term).  They neither have nor want a vision.  But now, Roxy has imposed on them their neighbors' serious request, and they, or maybe just Tracy, have found it a little too delicate just to file it in the circular file, as they do with most or all of what Roxy tries on her own to introduce.  It's the kind of initiative that any other Commission would list as "New Business," for inclusion in the 12 section, with an expectation of Commission discussion, and possible voting or other action.  But that, too, was too much dignity to give this group of neighbors, so the matter was placed as a "Presentation," at the beginning of the meeting.  That way, Tracy and the bobbleheads could "listen" (zone out), thank the group for its thoughtfulness, and move on, without any discussion or real and meaningful consideration.

This is an interesting and different Commission.  It is unique in its refusal to acknowledge or honor anything past Commissions have done, anything its neighbors think or want, and even rules of government.    It's really been one bullish, insular, and autocratic move after another that have defined the attitude of the majority of the current Commission, from day one.

So the matter was heard as a Presentation.  Even critics agreed it was a wonderful and carefully crafted presentation.  Each member of the group read his or her part, until the whole project was shared with a room full of people.  At the end of the presentation, Janey Anderson suggested to Her Majesty, the Most Powerful Empress Truppman, that the group could maybe take comments or questions from the room full of people.  But Her Majesty was entering intense deflection and destruction mode, and she refused to permit such an activity, on her personal time.  She partially relented, though, and she agreed, reluctantly, that during the next section of the meeting, Public Comment, anyone in the room full of people could then make comments or ask questions, and the group could answer them.  But when people actually did ask questions or make comments, the Omnipotent, and now annoyed, Empress refused to allow the group to respond.  So the "discussion" moved to the Commissioners.

The group had asked really only for one thing.  That was that the Commission lend its endorsement to an imminent series of wider public conversations, to which Commissioners were enthusiastically invited, and then, perhaps the Commission would like to take up some of whatever turned out to be salient issues.  Roxy Ross thought this was a fine idea.  The rest of them retreated to sputtering, blustering, and drooling down their shirts.  Jenny Johnson-Sardella and Harvey Bilt generally didn't seem to like the idea, and both of them went on about some grossly irrelevant nonsense having to do with this informal group's not being a proper Board.  So what?  They never said they were.  And then, they added equally vapid dodges about how sudden this was, and what an unthinkable idea it would be to try to plan public gatherings, near, um, Thanksgiving.  Will Tudor could find a way to accept people's talking about things, but he, too, thought this was just too abrupt.  He thought maybe after the first of the year.  Her Highness, thought that was pushing it, too, and suggested maybe let's say spring.  Neither Will nor the Empress specified which year they were considering.

No, they were all just disinclined.  Except Roxy Ross, but she doesn't count.  But the fearless group "wouldn't take 'no' for an answer," one of them said, and they pressed and finally "won" permission to have two meetings in the recreation center, and have the fee to hold those meetings waived.  Unanimously?!  I wouldn't say so.  La Truppman and her sidekick Harve stuck to their guns.  But our new we-don't-care-what-VBP-residents-want-or-think-and-we-will-never-listen-to-them Commission only agreed to allow meetings to be held (as if they could stop anyone from having meetings), and a bare majority of them agreed that the fee could be waived.  Big whoop.  We can shut you down now, or we can shut you down later.

It was clear what kinds of values were shared by a group of eight of our neighbors,  Some others expressed values of their own, in reaction to the presentation the eight made.  And everyone had a reasonable point.  The "values" of our new Commissioners?  Tracy values absolute power.  Jenny values her resume.  Will is still trying to protect himself from having to create a driveway.  And Harvey found an easy way to get himself a Commission seat, which means who knows what to him.  But none of them value anything that is connected to Biscayne Park.

Right, or Responsibility?

What a mess hurricane Irma created, here in BP and in various other parts of the county and south Florida.  And it could have been a lot worse.  We did not take a direct hit, as we thought we would, and there wasn't much rain.  The two things that happened most were downed branches and trees, and power outages.  Frequently, it was problem one that led to problem two.  That was certainly true in BP, where whole trees fell over, and they took lines with them.  The trees simply weren't strong enough and stable enough to resist the wind.  As an aside, I still say that the problem trees were banyans/ficus, australian pine, and seagrape, more than any others.

In any event, the reasons for the damage we all suffered were trees that could not withstand hurricane force winds, and trees that were not adequately and appropriately pruned for maximum strength and resistance.  Last year and the year before, our then Manager, Heidi Siegel, with the support of the Commission, engaged a company called Raydel to do Village-wide tree work, to improve our canopy, so it would be stronger and more resistant.  I can only assume the damage we suffered from Irma would have been worse, if we had not hired Raydel.  But we ran out of fiscal resolve to continue the tree maintenance program, and we got the result we got.

Raydel was hired to prune trees in the medians and other public spaces.  They were not hired to prune trees on private properties, or even in swales.  It's been our general understanding that such attention is the responsibility of property owners.  On the other hand, FPL, out of its concern for power lines, has been known to prune trees on private properties, because those trees, or specific branches of them, have represented more or less direct threats to the power lines.  Some property owners have been exercised about FPL's taking this kind of initiative with their-- the property owners'-- trees.

Every municipality served by FPL, most certainly including BP, has a contract with this electric company.  The contract allows FPL to sacrifice at least specific tree branches, if they threaten power lines, and that includes branches on private property.  It absolutely and without question includes branches and trees in public rights of way, including swales and other easements.  FPL is not wrong, then, to remove all or part of a branch that they think threatens the lines.  They're not obligated to be "nice" about it, or to employ the most pleasing pruning design.  Again, the assumption-- my assumption, anyway-- is that if you want pruning done "right," you get your own tree service, and have them remove branches as you think they should be removed.  But removing those branches that threaten the power (the power coming to your house!) is not your call.  And that's by contractual agreement.

The City of Coral Gables (CCG) has interpreted the contract to say not only that FPL has the right to do tree maintenance with a goal toward preserving the delivery of electric power, but frankly, and contractually (according to CCG governors and attorneys), they have the responsibility to deal with the trees.  CCG is suing FPL for not having been more aggressive about tree maintenance, and thus jeopardizing the delivery of electric power in CCG during and after hurricane Irma.

It's a different view to take, and I don't know how successful CCG will be in proposing to shift blame for the power outages from themselves, and all the owners of private property in CCG, onto FPL.  In theory, if CCG wins, the public will be excused from worrying about, and paying for, tree maintenance, but it will also be deprived of the opportunity to demand a specific approach to the task.  FPL's goal is to keep the power lines free.  It's not to make your canopy as pleasing and pretty as possible.  If that's what you want, you have to do it yourself.

One question is what would happen, and what would have happened, if FPL had known what we didn't know, or pretended not to know, and if they had done what we didn't do?  What if FPL had come through BP and removed all the banyans/ficuses, austalian pines, and seagrapes we left standing?  Presumably, there would have been a greater outcry than there was a few years ago, when the county removed several australian pines on Griffing.  But FPL would have been right, and those of us who would have insisted the trees were no threat would have been wrong.  And apart from whether anyone is right or wrong, no one who lost power failed to complain about it.  It's a huge trouble and expense to FPL, when they have to clean up the power outage mess, and no one else likes it, either.

This, of course, raises the other question of who's going to pay for tree maintenance.  Part of CCG's argument is that FPL's profit last year was about a half billion dollars.  Presumably, CCG is trying to argue that FPL has tons of money, and they should easily be able to pay for tree maintenance.  But FPL is a private company, not a public service, and their goal is to make as much money as they can.  They're not in any way looking to "do the right thing," even if a better canopy would have saved them the time, trouble, and expense of dealing with lost power, downed lines, and the reason the lines were down.  You'd think that as a private business, they'd be smart enough to think about that, but they're not.  Almost no business is smart that way.  And anyway, they just shift the cost onto their customers, pleading to the Public Service Commission that it cost them $______ to restore everyone's power.  So if you don't pay the cost by hiring your own tree service, or by paying enough extra tax to the municipality to do this for you, you'll pay it to FPL.  And you'll lose power anyway, because FPL isn't smart enough..; oh, never mind.  Or maybe they are smart enough.  Maybe they've figured out that it's easier and more successful for them to get the PSC to let them raise rates in response to the extra expense of hurricane clean-up than it would be to get the PSC to allow them to build a larger fund in advance, on the actuarial assumption that the expense will come eventually.

We should try to keep abreast of CCG's campaign to get FPL seen as the responsible party, when it comes to power outages caused by branches and trees that shouldn't have been there.  Maybe it's a suit (excuse the pun) we should follow.  In the meantime, it would be really stupid of us to forget what this is all about: trees and branches that should have been removed, but weren't (because everyone got cheap and short-sighted) and which should be removed now.

Correction

For many years, the Village has had a requirement that parking should be provided "on the property," not just in the swale.  Some homeowners never followed this requirement, and for whatever reasons, the Village did not enforce it.  In 2015, the Code Review Committee presented to the Commission a new proposed Code, and it strengthened and clarified requirements for parking.  The requirement for parking "on the property" was retained in the 2015 proposal.

At that point, there were over 60 properties that were out of compliance, and they always had been.  The Commission adjusted and ratified the CRC's proposal, but there were still some issues that were in some dispute, among Village residents and among Commissioners.  So there were ongoing efforts to further adjust the Code.  For the moment, the 2015 Code was the Code of record.

At that point, Village homeowners who were out of compliance, and always had been, did one of two things.  One was to adhere to the new Code, and that adherence took the form of designing and constructing proper parking where it should be, and where it should always have been.  About half of the 60+ property owners took that route.  The other half decided to do nothing, either because they didn't want to (they never wanted to), or because they wanted to wait for the final adjustment.

One thing that is important to realize here is that if homeowners whose properties are out of compliance felt more confident about what the Code was, and that it would not change, more of them would presumably have made the changes necessary.  So most Village residents, even among those whose properties were out of compliance and had always been so, actually want to do the "right thing."  Half already did, and more would have, if the last Commission had not hung them up by still considering possible changes.

From 2015, there has been a driveway and swale Code, and it required, as has always been required, parking "on the property."  Toward the end of 2016, there was another proposal, but it didn't pass.  So the controlling Code was and still is the 2015 Code.

When I quoted in the immediately preceding blog post that there were 12 properties out of compliance, I was wrong.  The correct number is 31 such properties.  It's still true that Will Tudor's property, and his sister-in-law's property, are among those out of compliance, but they are two of 31, not two of 12.

There's a "big picture" here.  Tracy Truppman's posture is that she doesn't want to ask her neighbors to spend money to improve their properties.  She doesn't argue that adherence to the old and new Code isn't an improvement.  She just doesn't want to be the "heavy" who makes this imposition on her neighbors.  That's the little picture.  The big picture is that what the old Code required, and the new Code reiterated, represents an improvement in the neighborhood.  Some people are asked to make a sacrifice for the good of the whole Village.

It's true that this kind of improvement costs money, and people don't like to spend money.  I myself was sensitive to that during my tenure on the Commission, and I advocated allowing people in less generous fiscal circumstances to have more time to make the changes.  In reality, the deadline for the change was September of 2015.  I have spoken to Village residents whose properties are not in compliance, but who recognize the value of complying, and who simply couldn't afford to comply by September, 2015.  Their intentions are good, and I lobbied to give them more time.  But I never took the position Tracy takes, which is to construct a Code that allows the weakest homeowners to control the look and functioning of the whole neighborhood, and thus to sacrifice the neighborhood and its appearance and its functioning and its good intentions for the lack of ambition of a few of its residents.  That's not how you protect and improve a neighborhood.  It's not how you try to enhance things like property values.  Frankly, it's a gross failure of leadership.  (Tracy told us previously that she doesn't think the Commission should, as she put it, "legislate from the bench."  Now, she shows us that she doesn't think the interests of the whole Village should be imposed on a very small minority of Village homeowners.  Those two things represent almost everything the Commission has to do.  So it's unclear why Tracy worked to get a job she doesn't want to do.)

And it wouldn't make any difference if Tracy is a failed leader, except that she controls the thinking and the behavior of three other Commissioners.  It is those three other Commissioners who make Tracy's failure a failure of the whole government of the Village, and thus of the Village itself.  It's now about one year down, and one to go, for two of the pets Tracy keeps on a short leash.  And it's three more years of Tracy and her other pet.

There Isn't Much to Say. And Not Much Point in Saying It.

Commission meetings are increasingly poorly attended these days.  Last week, we had the second reading of the budget Ordinance, and I think Linda Dillon, Chuck Ross, and I were the audience.  Tonight, we had the October Commission meeting.  Maybe there were eight of us.  At the beginning.  When I left, there were about four.  I've sat through plenty of bad and oppressive Commission meetings, but it's getting impossible to sit through these.

The bobbleheads were bobbling tonight.  It was clear they didn't really even know about what they were agreeing with each other, but bobble in agreement they did.  The first matter was a Resolution Roxy Ross introduced in support of federal sanctions imposed against the autocracy in Venezuela.  I have to say that when I read the proposal, I rolled my eyes.  This has nothing to do with BP, and it's a kind of clutter in the Agenda.  Harvey Bilt felt it was important to make that point explicitly, and he voted against it.  Jenny Johnson-Sardella couldn't support it, unless some of the language was adjusted.  Tracy Truppman was resistant, but she was ultimately content with Jenny's insistence that something be changed.  Will Tudor clearly couldn't have cared less, and seemed to know nothing about it.  But when Roxy was challenged as to why this was our business, she pointed out that we have some BP residents who are Venezuelan or have Venezuelan connections, and since it's an international concern, we should get on board, too.  Tracy was slightly mollified when she was reassured that the document Roxy presented was from the County, and not from Roxy.  But all in all, the bobbleheads made way too much out of this and gave Roxy way too hard a time.  But they passed it 4-1 (you show 'em, Harvey; you da man).

Then, it was our new driveway and swale Ordinance.  It's new, because even though Tracy lamely tried to claim it wasn't her Ordinance, it was in fact hers and hers alone.  She single-handedly rewrote the Ordinance the Code Review wrote, and which was then adjusted by the last Commission, in response to feedback from many residents, and which has consumed 2-3 years of Village time and attention.  But Tracy has no use for anyone except herself, and she simply discarded the whole thing.  Fortunately for Tracy, she has complete ownership of three other Village residents, who all happen to be on the Commission, and she simply forged ahead, rewriting, and lying about whose product this was.  It was so obnoxious and insulting that Roxy Ross got up, gathered her things, and withdrew from the meeting.  I mean really, what was the point in being there?  Tracy plus three other stooges equals whatever Tracy wants it to equal.  "Listening to residents?"  The only BP resident to whom Tracy ever listens is Rhonda's housemate.  And since hardly anyone bothers to attend meetings any more, Tracy can make up any story she likes about what some anonymous resident allegedly told her, and just do whatever she wants.  Which is what she does.

The only other funny thing was from last week, when we had the budget meeting.  For whatever nonsensical reason, Chester ("Doc") Morris made a special appearance specifically and explicitly for the purpose of thanking the Commission for hiring Grubbs, the company that did part of our hurricane clean-up.  I think Chester thought he was thanking those five Commissioners for having hired Grubbs.  But it was the last Commission that made the contract with Grubbs, and Roxy Ross is the only remaining member of that Commission.  If you think Tracy or anyone else corrected Chester, and told him they were glad he was satisfied, but they weren't the ones to thank (except Roxy), you can forget it.  I'm telling you...  Truppman, Trump...  Coincidence?

Come to think about it, there was one other comical thing from tonight.  While Tracy was trying to explain why the driveway/swale Ordinance should be written whatever way she wanted to write it, she got someone to acknowledge that there were 12 properties completely out of compliance with what was everyone's plan (until tonight).  She wanted to write an Ordinance that would satisfy those 12 properties.  As they were discussing this, Tracy and two of her dopes agreed with each other about writing an Ordinance that wouldn't threaten those 12 properties, and then they all looked at the other bobblehead: Will.  Will couldn't speak.  He probably wasn't sure what to say.  He couldn't admit that he should at least recuse himself (knowing his pals would cover him anyway), and he couldn't disclose.  His is one of the 12 properties that was never in compliance, and his sister-in-law's is another.  The fact is that preventing the Village from making him put a driveway on his property is the one and only reason Will ever wanted to be on the Commission.  And there it was, the table set for him.  He could have been graceful and open about it.  He was going to get his way anyway.  But no.