On the radio this morning, there was a story about a Republican US Congressman whose district includes Joplin, Missouri.. He reportedly aligns himself with the "Tea Party." The story was about what amounts to hypocrisy. Joplin was heavily damaged by tornados this year, and the Congressman eagerly accepted, in fact sought, whatever help FEMA could give. There were even reportedly supportive and heartfelt appearances in the area by Obama and Nancy Pelosi. Some people in Joplin didn't want the help. They are far right-wingers, and they reportedly wanted only to help themselves, with no contribution from the Federal government, for which they apparently have disdain. But the Congressman was more than happy to accept help from FEMA, even though his usual public statements were in the direction of limiting the Federal government and FEMA.
I remember a TV show Michael Moore did about 15 years ago. It was called "TV Nation," and it was a somewhat provocative investigation show, more or less like his movies. In one episode, he tracked down Newt Gingrich, to ask him about a sizable Federal expenditure in Gingrich's district. The expenditure was to construct a large pond or lake, to enhance a private high end housing development. Gingrich essentially ran away and refused to talk to Moore.
For years, Joe Lieberman called himself a Democrat. I could never figure out why. Eventually, he gave it up, and he now calls himself a Republican. Makes complete sense to me. Every one of his policies was, as I recall, in line with Republicans. He really was one. Now, he admits it. It's better that way.
So every once in a while, you find someone like that. Someone who declares him or herself a member of one party, but whose heart is very clearly with the other party. For example, you might find someone who will, at any moment of any day, say he is a Democrat, and support and vote for Democrats, but who has allergy-level, and certainly Republican-level, mistrust of and disdain for government, and who will react even to the mention of taxes as if they were someone's attempt to swindle him out of his money. Or as if taxation was more or less like the government's commission of armed robbery. Such people are sometimes preoccupied with crime and "aliens," and they seem to want to live in a fortress.
As I say, it's a curious thing. Tip O'Neill was prophetically right. All politics really are local. The guy from Missouri and Newt Gingrich can complain all they want about Federal expenditures and even waste, but when it's for their own enrichment, they get much more flexible. They get "generous with other people's money." And others can say what they want about the importance of the role of government in supporting the public and infrastructure, but when it's their money that has to pay for it, they're not so sure it's necessary, or at least that there must be some other way to pay for it. Or some "grant" or other source that will pay, because they want to keep their money. It seems they're generous, too, but only if the money is someone else's.
The fact is, of course, that most people who call themselves adherents of one party or another are essentially honest about it. They declare a party affiliation, because they agree with the philosophies and positions of that party. But some people are either confused or hypocrites. For whatever reasons, they claim affiliation with one major party, but their real personal instincts and ethics are much better aligned with the other party. Too bad they either don't get it, or they're not honest enough to call themselves what they are.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Gimme a Break!
What an awful hearing I'm slogging through today. The attorney is the most miserable I ever have to deal with. He's in Queens, New York. I probably shouldn't say his name. I've dealt with him on many occasions, and he is essentially a terrorist when it comes to hearings. I've seen him bring hearings and judges to their knees. He's doing it again. How he thinks this serves his clients' interests is beyond me. I can imagine that a judge might be tempted to find against his client, just because they can't stand him.
He constantly interrupts those testifying, the judges, and the experts. He is rude and hostile, and he challenges everything. Everything! He accuses judges and medical experts of being biased. He even writes about this, and his flailings can be found on line. He raises his voice during hearings, talks over people, and seems devoted to derailing the hearings. It is not infrequent that judges will tell him he has to control himself, or they will suspend and have to reschedule the hearings. Hearings with him take significantly longer than with other attorneys, because he won't stay on track and/or shut up. Attorneys in New York are peculiarly uninhibited and combative, but this guy takes the cake.
Today, he stopped a hearing for a while, asserting that perhaps the recording might not be working. While this was being investigated, he took another swipe at the judge, noting that he recalled another time the recording failed "conveniently" at a time the judge "wanted the case to go away." As it turns out, the recording was working fine. It appears he invented his concern, to keep the hearing off balance. And never mind the vile accusation of the judge.
He's also an avid letter-writer to higher authorities. He has turned in judges for accusations of bias, and he once wrote to a judge to request that the judge surrender me to the Attorney General's Office for criminal investigation, based on his conclusion that I lied about something. Five of the judges in that office are being sued for bias. It appears this attorney is behind it.
This attorney is clearly a very disturbed person. He is belligerent, uncivilized, and seems to me to be almost paranoid. He is completely unmanageable in a hearing. And the funny thing is I met him once. I went to NY to do hearings, and he was one of the attorneys. He dresses well and looks normal. Apparently, he's very intelligent. He got his BS in Psychology from UVA, Magna Cum Laude, and his law degree from Penn. If he didn't open his mouth, you'd never know how grossly dysfunctional he is.
I know, this blog is supposed to be about BP, and I'm ventilating about a problem hearing in NY. What's the hearing got to do with BP? Yes, I suppose you're right. This hearing is just a real and crushing drag. I'm stuck in the middle of it, and it's on my mind.
PS: The hearing is over. Hearings take anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour, with the occasional hearing taking an hour and a half. This one took just under four hours. What a waste of time and life. Though I'm sure the attorney would say he was only pursuing adequate advocacy for his client. He has not the slightest sense of proportion, and not much reality-testing, either.
He constantly interrupts those testifying, the judges, and the experts. He is rude and hostile, and he challenges everything. Everything! He accuses judges and medical experts of being biased. He even writes about this, and his flailings can be found on line. He raises his voice during hearings, talks over people, and seems devoted to derailing the hearings. It is not infrequent that judges will tell him he has to control himself, or they will suspend and have to reschedule the hearings. Hearings with him take significantly longer than with other attorneys, because he won't stay on track and/or shut up. Attorneys in New York are peculiarly uninhibited and combative, but this guy takes the cake.
Today, he stopped a hearing for a while, asserting that perhaps the recording might not be working. While this was being investigated, he took another swipe at the judge, noting that he recalled another time the recording failed "conveniently" at a time the judge "wanted the case to go away." As it turns out, the recording was working fine. It appears he invented his concern, to keep the hearing off balance. And never mind the vile accusation of the judge.
He's also an avid letter-writer to higher authorities. He has turned in judges for accusations of bias, and he once wrote to a judge to request that the judge surrender me to the Attorney General's Office for criminal investigation, based on his conclusion that I lied about something. Five of the judges in that office are being sued for bias. It appears this attorney is behind it.
This attorney is clearly a very disturbed person. He is belligerent, uncivilized, and seems to me to be almost paranoid. He is completely unmanageable in a hearing. And the funny thing is I met him once. I went to NY to do hearings, and he was one of the attorneys. He dresses well and looks normal. Apparently, he's very intelligent. He got his BS in Psychology from UVA, Magna Cum Laude, and his law degree from Penn. If he didn't open his mouth, you'd never know how grossly dysfunctional he is.
I know, this blog is supposed to be about BP, and I'm ventilating about a problem hearing in NY. What's the hearing got to do with BP? Yes, I suppose you're right. This hearing is just a real and crushing drag. I'm stuck in the middle of it, and it's on my mind.
PS: The hearing is over. Hearings take anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour, with the occasional hearing taking an hour and a half. This one took just under four hours. What a waste of time and life. Though I'm sure the attorney would say he was only pursuing adequate advocacy for his client. He has not the slightest sense of proportion, and not much reality-testing, either.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
What? We're Not Good Enough?
I wasn't expecting to submit a travelogue, but maybe it's not a bad idea. My most recent trip was to Kansas City and San Diego. Before that, it was Massachusetts, mostly the Berkshire towns in western Massachusetts. Last year, I was in Asheville NC. So what do all these places have in common? And why am I wasting your time telling you about them? They all have public art programs, mainly public sculpture. I bring them up, because they're sort of informal, as these things go. Boston has public sculpture. So does NYC. In fact, so does Miami Beach. And San Francisco. But these are more upscale programs, in a way. Lots of money spent, for juried or commissioned pieces.
Kansas City has loads of public sculpture. It's really quite surprising, and it exists throughout the city and even in neighboring municipalities. Much of it was donated by private wealthy people. The bigger and better pieces are wonderful. But there are also very many pieces which are frankly modest in themselves. Some of them are not much different from some of the garden statuary you can find at various locations in Miami. But given a bit of care about placement and surrounding shrubbery, even these pieces look impressive. Not always for what they are per se, but for the fact that they're there. They're like the difference between a blank wall in your home and a wall with a picture on it. Do you have any pictures on your walls at home? Did you pay thousands or many thousands or tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for them at a prestigious art gallery or a high end auction? No? Oh, they're just pictures you happen to like, maybe even inexpensive reproductions or posters, and you like a bit of decor in your home? Right, some public art is just like that. There's lots like that in KC and environs. And bigger and more impressive pieces, too. I'm told KC has the second most fountains of any city in the world. Rome has more. Almost everywhere you look, there's something interesting. And beautiful. And the people of KC like it that way.
San Diego has less, but it's effective. There's one strip of sculptures along the wharf. No high art at all, but each piece interesting. And the aggregate is even better than the interesting pieces. Other pieces are scattered at various places in the city. There doesn't seem to be a concerted and pervasive plan, like there is in KC, but they certainly make their point.
Asheville is quite interesting. It's a relatively small and funky venue, and you sort of stumble onto things. The public outdoor sculpture in Asheville is distinctly funky. It's humorous and often unexpected. There's a real sense of playfulness about Asheville's sculpture. And there's more of it than you would think there would be in a town like that.
Pittsfield, Massachusetts, is a depressed city. They lost a huge employer in General Electric, and they never quite recovered. They seem to be working on it. They like their summer outdoor festivals, and they have overflow from the toney Berkshire crowd, but Pittsfield itself is distinctly blue collar, at best. High unemployment. So what on earth are they doing with so many pieces of outdoor public sculpture? Again, no high art. Just weird, sometimes funky, curious stuff, and it isn't all the same from one year to the next. You really want to drive through the center of downtown, just to see what they have this year. And you can't fully believe they take themselves that seriously. Or have quite that much pride. But apparently, they do.
And these are not the only places you find public art. We have some here. You know those huge fiberglass chickens that are painted in various ways? There's at least one on SW 8th Street. And other places. What, that's not public art? Says who? Of course it is. In the Berkshire towns, it's cows like that. And someplace else, I saw the same phenomenon, only sheep. OK, so it's not "high art." And your point is? It's diversity. It's intrigue. It's a kind of drama. Or it's cute, or funny, or charming. And it's interesting and engaging. It makes you want to look around, maybe wonder what's down the next street. It makes you think about the people. They like themselves, and the place they live. They have a special pride. They want life in their lives.
Now I couldn't prove this, it's just my impression, but it seems to me art like this adds real value to a place, too. Would I say to you that it specifically increases "property values?" No, I couldn't do that. I don't know if it does, or if anyone tried to study the question. But I will tell you that my reaction to the areas that want to feature public art is that they seem to have a special "value."
Right now, we in BP are sort of suffering a bit. Some of it is our own fault, and some isn't. The part that's not our fault is the foreclosures and bank-owned properties. No one even cuts the grass, and these properties are hurting. My own sense, and listening to what others say at Commission meetings and elsewhere, is that they're hurting all of us. What is our own fault is decrepit lawns, paint and other maintenance that isn't done, and miserable medians. I was on Planning and Zoning for a few years, and it's very clear to me that the policy-makers, and the enforcers, do not want to live in a run down environment. Neither do I. If anything, they want the Codes strengthened, and they want them enforced. We want to step it up, and have a neighborhood that pleases us and that we can be proud of.
We have a piece of public sculpture of our own. It's in "Griffing Park," just across 6th Avenue from the log cabin. But we're not limited to one sculpture. We could have as many as we want. As long as we're interested and willing to provide them for ourselves. We could have frequently occurring smaller concrete pieces, on every median, if we want, and/or we can have more attention-grabbing pieces, in large medians or any of our public places. All we need is interest, a certain amount of money, and a commitment from the Village to make the spaces available.
Have I sparked anyone's interest? I want to know about it if I have. I'm more than happy to help find pieces, collect money, and get us stuff. Or, the Foundation, if it raises enough money on a reliable and recurring basis, may want to begin a program of acquisition of public sculpture for us. Also, if we don't have enough money, many sculptors who make large and expensive pieces, will rent those pieces, usually for 10% of the purchase price per year. You can lease a piece for a year or two or so, then let it go and get something else. Or if we really liked something we leased, we could just finish paying for it and keep it.
So lemme know what you think.
Kansas City has loads of public sculpture. It's really quite surprising, and it exists throughout the city and even in neighboring municipalities. Much of it was donated by private wealthy people. The bigger and better pieces are wonderful. But there are also very many pieces which are frankly modest in themselves. Some of them are not much different from some of the garden statuary you can find at various locations in Miami. But given a bit of care about placement and surrounding shrubbery, even these pieces look impressive. Not always for what they are per se, but for the fact that they're there. They're like the difference between a blank wall in your home and a wall with a picture on it. Do you have any pictures on your walls at home? Did you pay thousands or many thousands or tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for them at a prestigious art gallery or a high end auction? No? Oh, they're just pictures you happen to like, maybe even inexpensive reproductions or posters, and you like a bit of decor in your home? Right, some public art is just like that. There's lots like that in KC and environs. And bigger and more impressive pieces, too. I'm told KC has the second most fountains of any city in the world. Rome has more. Almost everywhere you look, there's something interesting. And beautiful. And the people of KC like it that way.
San Diego has less, but it's effective. There's one strip of sculptures along the wharf. No high art at all, but each piece interesting. And the aggregate is even better than the interesting pieces. Other pieces are scattered at various places in the city. There doesn't seem to be a concerted and pervasive plan, like there is in KC, but they certainly make their point.
Asheville is quite interesting. It's a relatively small and funky venue, and you sort of stumble onto things. The public outdoor sculpture in Asheville is distinctly funky. It's humorous and often unexpected. There's a real sense of playfulness about Asheville's sculpture. And there's more of it than you would think there would be in a town like that.
Pittsfield, Massachusetts, is a depressed city. They lost a huge employer in General Electric, and they never quite recovered. They seem to be working on it. They like their summer outdoor festivals, and they have overflow from the toney Berkshire crowd, but Pittsfield itself is distinctly blue collar, at best. High unemployment. So what on earth are they doing with so many pieces of outdoor public sculpture? Again, no high art. Just weird, sometimes funky, curious stuff, and it isn't all the same from one year to the next. You really want to drive through the center of downtown, just to see what they have this year. And you can't fully believe they take themselves that seriously. Or have quite that much pride. But apparently, they do.
And these are not the only places you find public art. We have some here. You know those huge fiberglass chickens that are painted in various ways? There's at least one on SW 8th Street. And other places. What, that's not public art? Says who? Of course it is. In the Berkshire towns, it's cows like that. And someplace else, I saw the same phenomenon, only sheep. OK, so it's not "high art." And your point is? It's diversity. It's intrigue. It's a kind of drama. Or it's cute, or funny, or charming. And it's interesting and engaging. It makes you want to look around, maybe wonder what's down the next street. It makes you think about the people. They like themselves, and the place they live. They have a special pride. They want life in their lives.
Now I couldn't prove this, it's just my impression, but it seems to me art like this adds real value to a place, too. Would I say to you that it specifically increases "property values?" No, I couldn't do that. I don't know if it does, or if anyone tried to study the question. But I will tell you that my reaction to the areas that want to feature public art is that they seem to have a special "value."
Right now, we in BP are sort of suffering a bit. Some of it is our own fault, and some isn't. The part that's not our fault is the foreclosures and bank-owned properties. No one even cuts the grass, and these properties are hurting. My own sense, and listening to what others say at Commission meetings and elsewhere, is that they're hurting all of us. What is our own fault is decrepit lawns, paint and other maintenance that isn't done, and miserable medians. I was on Planning and Zoning for a few years, and it's very clear to me that the policy-makers, and the enforcers, do not want to live in a run down environment. Neither do I. If anything, they want the Codes strengthened, and they want them enforced. We want to step it up, and have a neighborhood that pleases us and that we can be proud of.
We have a piece of public sculpture of our own. It's in "Griffing Park," just across 6th Avenue from the log cabin. But we're not limited to one sculpture. We could have as many as we want. As long as we're interested and willing to provide them for ourselves. We could have frequently occurring smaller concrete pieces, on every median, if we want, and/or we can have more attention-grabbing pieces, in large medians or any of our public places. All we need is interest, a certain amount of money, and a commitment from the Village to make the spaces available.
Have I sparked anyone's interest? I want to know about it if I have. I'm more than happy to help find pieces, collect money, and get us stuff. Or, the Foundation, if it raises enough money on a reliable and recurring basis, may want to begin a program of acquisition of public sculpture for us. Also, if we don't have enough money, many sculptors who make large and expensive pieces, will rent those pieces, usually for 10% of the purchase price per year. You can lease a piece for a year or two or so, then let it go and get something else. Or if we really liked something we leased, we could just finish paying for it and keep it.
So lemme know what you think.
Bada-Bing
Steve Bernard and I do not speak to each other. My best guess is that given an adequate opportunity, we might well not even like each other. This will come as a kind of surprise after the Commission meeting last night, where we seemed so well coordinated, as if we had been planning and rehearsing a show. It was, in its way, a bit like professional wrestling, where we seem to fight, but we are really acting a very carefully choreographed demonstration. So what did we demonstrate last night?
There was the build-up, of course. The pre-banter and the mutual dissing. Played out to the public over days, weeks, and months. Last night, we started with me for the evening's show. I gave my little speech, which I had written the week before and circulated, including to my partner, Commissioner Bernard. This works better if he knows what I'm going to say. So I said he was rigid, stubborn, contrary, disruptive, and uncooperative. It's the typical material he and I use. We find it works well for us. I said he would complain that he didn't have a fair chance to digest the budget, had too many unanswered questions, felt unaccommodated, was generally immature in his approach, and would ultimately vote against the budget. I threw in his junior partner as well, and Steve and I have come to have excellent confidence that the lad won't disappoint. So that was the set-up.
Then, it was my partner's turn. I only get three minutes, and he gets all night (mercifully shortened this time to 10 crushing minutes), so I think we can safely call his part of the demonstration the Steve Bernard Show, starring......Steve......Bernard! So he picks up his cues and explains that of course he has a million questions. He's already asked them, he admits, but they went unanswered. So he still has them. (We now make reference to what each other says, for thematic continuity and comic timing. Never mind; believe me, it works well.) So where I accuse him of getting ready to complain that he's been cheated out of time to study the budget and get answers to his questions, he then complains that he's been cheated out of time to study the budget and get answers to his questions. (We're trying to develop a variation where he blames me for the deprivation, but we haven't been able to come up with a mechanism. Yet.)
We had a few missteps last night, and we have to work them out. They were untidy. One was where I say he's had two months to study the budget and ask all his questions privately of the Manager and Finance Director. Well, the fact is he really didn't bother to discuss any of this with them, and I'm afraid he may have come out looking badly on this one. This is not good for the act. Also, he invokes the public interest and desire to know about the budget, and I clumsily pointed out that essentially no one came to the public workshops. In the past, he's whined that there wasn't adequate notification, people didn't know, the recording system wasn't working, or some other irrelevant or nonsensical tangent. But he sort of surrendered last night to my assertion that actually no one cares, and he's just talking to himself. We'll try to compose a better comeback for him next time.
So Steve continues on. The million questions, asked with hostile attitude; the undercurrent accusations and complaints of managerial misbehavior and incompetence; the references to inept and gullible colleagues; the disdain for the appalling lack of rigor in the entire pathetic system. Steve can do this in his sleep. He probably does. But it's not just content, which is beginning to get dangerously trite for him. He has a stage show to perform. After all, there are the imagined peeps out there. The fantasied adoring audience. The hypothetical beneficiaries of the pitbull advocacy he delivers. These aren't lines you simply read. You have to act them out. Out comes the interrupting, the badgering, the hectoring, and those trademark smirks. And the spitballs. Tom Cruise and Denzel have their mulitmillion dollar smiles. Our Steve has his spitballs. He nearly unnerved Roxy, and he threw Bob Anderson completely off track. Bob had to give up in disgust, having admittedly lost his train of thought. What a barrage. Better than Fourth of July fireworks. Al Childress was too far away, and he contented himself simply with telling Steve he had the floor. Yawn.
Then, we approach the end. Now I have to set this up right. It's way too good to mischaracterize. And I have an admission to make. I said far in advance, and in my preparatory words last night, that the Commission would pass the budget 3-2. I know: duh. But one of my friends bet me a bottle of scotch it would pass 4-1. What?!! 4-1?!! Who, I asked incredulously, is going to flinch? Cooper, said my friend. Nah, you're out of your mind. Cooper won't flinch. Cooper, "Dr No," doesn't even know what's going on. He has no reason to flinch. But no, my friend wouldn't flinch, either. He really thought he was getting a bottle off me. So here's where it gets good. Each Commissioner had his or her say, and a chance to make suggestions for the budget. My Steve started. Then it was Childress. Eventually, it was Cooper's turn. At some point, he let slip that he "couldn't vote for this budget because..." and I turned and gave my friend a smirk of my own. Now in the meantime, I'm actually getting worried. My Steve asked all his questions, and made many suggestions. But Roxy, who I thought was a friend, starts making sure Steve gets answers to his questions, and worse, she starts engineering that each of his requests is satisfied. Come on, Rox, I have a bottle of scotch riding on this. My friend didn't say the bet was about Cooper. He said it was about the vote. If it's any 4-1, I lose! And my so-called friend Roxy Ross is explicitly and completely openly trying to get Steve to find agreement with the budget. So he'll vote for it!! She said so!! You know how the car salesmen ask what they have to do to get you buy the car right now? Yeah, it was like that. Rox!! How can you do this to me? So Steve gets everything he wants. All questions answered. All requests accommodated. I'm sunk.
The vote gets taken, and it's..............3-2. Ahhhh. That's my boy. You can give him absolutely everything he wants, and he still won't be satisfied. The funny thing is, that's exactly what I said in my opening speech, but I forgot. I got a little panicked over the scotch, and I forgot the deal. This is Steve Bernard we're talking about here. It wasn't about the budget. It was just about rebelling.
So now, my friend can go buy me a bottle of Glenrothes, and everything will be right with the world. Thanks, partner.
There was the build-up, of course. The pre-banter and the mutual dissing. Played out to the public over days, weeks, and months. Last night, we started with me for the evening's show. I gave my little speech, which I had written the week before and circulated, including to my partner, Commissioner Bernard. This works better if he knows what I'm going to say. So I said he was rigid, stubborn, contrary, disruptive, and uncooperative. It's the typical material he and I use. We find it works well for us. I said he would complain that he didn't have a fair chance to digest the budget, had too many unanswered questions, felt unaccommodated, was generally immature in his approach, and would ultimately vote against the budget. I threw in his junior partner as well, and Steve and I have come to have excellent confidence that the lad won't disappoint. So that was the set-up.
Then, it was my partner's turn. I only get three minutes, and he gets all night (mercifully shortened this time to 10 crushing minutes), so I think we can safely call his part of the demonstration the Steve Bernard Show, starring......Steve......Bernard! So he picks up his cues and explains that of course he has a million questions. He's already asked them, he admits, but they went unanswered. So he still has them. (We now make reference to what each other says, for thematic continuity and comic timing. Never mind; believe me, it works well.) So where I accuse him of getting ready to complain that he's been cheated out of time to study the budget and get answers to his questions, he then complains that he's been cheated out of time to study the budget and get answers to his questions. (We're trying to develop a variation where he blames me for the deprivation, but we haven't been able to come up with a mechanism. Yet.)
We had a few missteps last night, and we have to work them out. They were untidy. One was where I say he's had two months to study the budget and ask all his questions privately of the Manager and Finance Director. Well, the fact is he really didn't bother to discuss any of this with them, and I'm afraid he may have come out looking badly on this one. This is not good for the act. Also, he invokes the public interest and desire to know about the budget, and I clumsily pointed out that essentially no one came to the public workshops. In the past, he's whined that there wasn't adequate notification, people didn't know, the recording system wasn't working, or some other irrelevant or nonsensical tangent. But he sort of surrendered last night to my assertion that actually no one cares, and he's just talking to himself. We'll try to compose a better comeback for him next time.
So Steve continues on. The million questions, asked with hostile attitude; the undercurrent accusations and complaints of managerial misbehavior and incompetence; the references to inept and gullible colleagues; the disdain for the appalling lack of rigor in the entire pathetic system. Steve can do this in his sleep. He probably does. But it's not just content, which is beginning to get dangerously trite for him. He has a stage show to perform. After all, there are the imagined peeps out there. The fantasied adoring audience. The hypothetical beneficiaries of the pitbull advocacy he delivers. These aren't lines you simply read. You have to act them out. Out comes the interrupting, the badgering, the hectoring, and those trademark smirks. And the spitballs. Tom Cruise and Denzel have their mulitmillion dollar smiles. Our Steve has his spitballs. He nearly unnerved Roxy, and he threw Bob Anderson completely off track. Bob had to give up in disgust, having admittedly lost his train of thought. What a barrage. Better than Fourth of July fireworks. Al Childress was too far away, and he contented himself simply with telling Steve he had the floor. Yawn.
Then, we approach the end. Now I have to set this up right. It's way too good to mischaracterize. And I have an admission to make. I said far in advance, and in my preparatory words last night, that the Commission would pass the budget 3-2. I know: duh. But one of my friends bet me a bottle of scotch it would pass 4-1. What?!! 4-1?!! Who, I asked incredulously, is going to flinch? Cooper, said my friend. Nah, you're out of your mind. Cooper won't flinch. Cooper, "Dr No," doesn't even know what's going on. He has no reason to flinch. But no, my friend wouldn't flinch, either. He really thought he was getting a bottle off me. So here's where it gets good. Each Commissioner had his or her say, and a chance to make suggestions for the budget. My Steve started. Then it was Childress. Eventually, it was Cooper's turn. At some point, he let slip that he "couldn't vote for this budget because..." and I turned and gave my friend a smirk of my own. Now in the meantime, I'm actually getting worried. My Steve asked all his questions, and made many suggestions. But Roxy, who I thought was a friend, starts making sure Steve gets answers to his questions, and worse, she starts engineering that each of his requests is satisfied. Come on, Rox, I have a bottle of scotch riding on this. My friend didn't say the bet was about Cooper. He said it was about the vote. If it's any 4-1, I lose! And my so-called friend Roxy Ross is explicitly and completely openly trying to get Steve to find agreement with the budget. So he'll vote for it!! She said so!! You know how the car salesmen ask what they have to do to get you buy the car right now? Yeah, it was like that. Rox!! How can you do this to me? So Steve gets everything he wants. All questions answered. All requests accommodated. I'm sunk.
The vote gets taken, and it's..............3-2. Ahhhh. That's my boy. You can give him absolutely everything he wants, and he still won't be satisfied. The funny thing is, that's exactly what I said in my opening speech, but I forgot. I got a little panicked over the scotch, and I forgot the deal. This is Steve Bernard we're talking about here. It wasn't about the budget. It was just about rebelling.
So now, my friend can go buy me a bottle of Glenrothes, and everything will be right with the world. Thanks, partner.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Good Help is So Hard to Find
So, it's "budget season." And our crack Commissioner/Architect/Attorney/Accountant/Manager/Arborist is on the case again. He sometimes says he's been through five budgets in his tenure to date. Others say he's been through one budget, but he's been through it five times. The latter appears to be more accurate in that he asks the same questions of two different Managers and three different Finance Directors, and no matter what answers he's given, or how many times he's given them, he always votes against the budget. He seems to approach this exercise by saying, "The answer is no; what's the question?"
And his methods are always the same. He asks a million questions, in much more detail than anyone else, he insists on asking them in advance and getting advance answers, and then he asks them again in workshops and again at budget hearings. He appears to have forgotten that under his leadership, a Charter Review Committee recommended a significant change in the Charter, the Commission agreed with him, and a majority of voters also agreed with him. The change was to use a professional manager to oversee the functioning of the Village. But from the day he became a Commissioner himself, he has been inexorable in bucking one Manager, then another, at absolutely every step along the way. He has been explicit in letting it be known he does not want a Manager making decisions for the running of our Village. It appears he wants to make the decisions. It's never made clear what he intended in suggesting we switch to a Manager form of management, or what he thinks the Commission at the time meant by agreeing with him, or what he thinks the rest of the residents of the Village meant in agreeing with him. Perhaps he anticipated that he would become a Commissioner himself some day, even explicitly attempted to install himself as Mayor, and was simply arranging for the Village to hire him an Executive Secretary. It was a very significant and expensive change for us, so I hope he was expecting to be Mayor, or Emperor, or whatever he had in mind, for a very long time.
So now, he is complaining about Village finances. Central among his complaints is that oversight of them is tardy. In case anyone thought he had no insight about why they might be tardy, he himself airs a quote from the Manager: "Continuing to answer your ongoing e-mails and requests is putting us in a position of halting our operations." This is in English, and he quotes it. In bold. So we have to assume he understands it. He is creating the problem of which he then complains. But in case anyone thought the Commissioner was entirely without empathy, he does address the Manager's complaint. He declares it untrue. We learn from him that his hectoring, nagging, dragging, gnat-like, time-consuming, spitball-launching approach to dealing with our administrative staff does not in fact interfere with their ability to function, and we know this because the Commissioner tells us so. So there.
Do you know the joke about the mother who gives her son two ties for his birthday? He goes to his room, and comes out wearing the blue one. Oh, she whines, you didn't like the red one? That's what our dear Commissioner does, except he isn't nearly as whiney and pathetic as he is passive-aggressive and deliberately sabotaging. He demands what he doesn't need and isn't entitled to, then complains when he gets it, and other responsibilities are set aside to provide it for him. Or he complains when he doesn't get it. It appears most likely he doesn't much care whether he gets what he requests or not. His goal is to complain and criticize, and he is laser-like in his ability to find something to criticize or about which to complain. It's like that obnoxious game we played in elementary school, when we would enter into a conversation with another child and simply, repeatedly, mindlessly, annoyingly, frustratingly respond to anything the other person said with "why?" It gets old in a hurry, even for the brat doing it. Most of us gave it up very long ago. But not all of us.
So it seems we once bothered our Commissioner friend by having a Manager he considered incompetent. Now, we have another Manager he apparently also considers incompetent. It's hard to know what to do here. Do we conclude we are batting 0.000 in trying to find a quality Manager, because one Commissioner says so, or do we conclude that the majority of Commissioners, in two different Commissions, are probably more right than one and a half Commissioners who complain about the Managers, and in fact complain about everything? Is it hard to do this math?
And his methods are always the same. He asks a million questions, in much more detail than anyone else, he insists on asking them in advance and getting advance answers, and then he asks them again in workshops and again at budget hearings. He appears to have forgotten that under his leadership, a Charter Review Committee recommended a significant change in the Charter, the Commission agreed with him, and a majority of voters also agreed with him. The change was to use a professional manager to oversee the functioning of the Village. But from the day he became a Commissioner himself, he has been inexorable in bucking one Manager, then another, at absolutely every step along the way. He has been explicit in letting it be known he does not want a Manager making decisions for the running of our Village. It appears he wants to make the decisions. It's never made clear what he intended in suggesting we switch to a Manager form of management, or what he thinks the Commission at the time meant by agreeing with him, or what he thinks the rest of the residents of the Village meant in agreeing with him. Perhaps he anticipated that he would become a Commissioner himself some day, even explicitly attempted to install himself as Mayor, and was simply arranging for the Village to hire him an Executive Secretary. It was a very significant and expensive change for us, so I hope he was expecting to be Mayor, or Emperor, or whatever he had in mind, for a very long time.
So now, he is complaining about Village finances. Central among his complaints is that oversight of them is tardy. In case anyone thought he had no insight about why they might be tardy, he himself airs a quote from the Manager: "Continuing to answer your ongoing e-mails and requests is putting us in a position of halting our operations." This is in English, and he quotes it. In bold. So we have to assume he understands it. He is creating the problem of which he then complains. But in case anyone thought the Commissioner was entirely without empathy, he does address the Manager's complaint. He declares it untrue. We learn from him that his hectoring, nagging, dragging, gnat-like, time-consuming, spitball-launching approach to dealing with our administrative staff does not in fact interfere with their ability to function, and we know this because the Commissioner tells us so. So there.
Do you know the joke about the mother who gives her son two ties for his birthday? He goes to his room, and comes out wearing the blue one. Oh, she whines, you didn't like the red one? That's what our dear Commissioner does, except he isn't nearly as whiney and pathetic as he is passive-aggressive and deliberately sabotaging. He demands what he doesn't need and isn't entitled to, then complains when he gets it, and other responsibilities are set aside to provide it for him. Or he complains when he doesn't get it. It appears most likely he doesn't much care whether he gets what he requests or not. His goal is to complain and criticize, and he is laser-like in his ability to find something to criticize or about which to complain. It's like that obnoxious game we played in elementary school, when we would enter into a conversation with another child and simply, repeatedly, mindlessly, annoyingly, frustratingly respond to anything the other person said with "why?" It gets old in a hurry, even for the brat doing it. Most of us gave it up very long ago. But not all of us.
So it seems we once bothered our Commissioner friend by having a Manager he considered incompetent. Now, we have another Manager he apparently also considers incompetent. It's hard to know what to do here. Do we conclude we are batting 0.000 in trying to find a quality Manager, because one Commissioner says so, or do we conclude that the majority of Commissioners, in two different Commissions, are probably more right than one and a half Commissioners who complain about the Managers, and in fact complain about everything? Is it hard to do this math?
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Whew! In a twisted sort of way.
At the Commission meeting last night, we concluded a critical phase of budget deciding. We established a maximum rate to charge for property tax against assessed property value. This is called the TRIM. We can set any rate we want, from nothing to 10 mills. A mill is worth one thousandth of the assessed value of a real property. So if we charge 5 mills of assessed value (assessed value minus homestead exemption), a net $300K property will have a bill of $1500. If we charge 10 mills, it's $3000. For the rest of this discussion, there are four numbers to keep in mind: 10, 9.2661, 8.9933, and 8.90. Three of them have some sort of identifiable rationale, and the other has no meaning whatsoever. We'll come to that.
The Village has had some tough times in recent years, as have all municipalities. There have been foreclosures, which produce no property tax, and general devaluation, which means that the assessed values have dropped, for no reality-based reason, and therefore so has the tax. In addition, the homestead exemption, which is an amount that is not subjected to taxation, was doubled. So the Village has three sources of revenue loss. There is one kind of property that has not only not produced less tax, it has produced more tax than the year before. These are properties that were purchased sufficiently long ago, at low enough price, with homestead exemption in place, so that the tax owed in a market of rising real estate values soon enough was under the standard for like-market value properties. Just to illustrate this, if someone bought a property for $100K years ago, and fixed the tax rate through homestead exemption, and through increasing real estate values, that property is now worth $350, the tax paid is based on the original purchase price, not the current market value. If the homeowner sells the house for $350K, the new owner will pay a much higher property tax, for the exact same property. The implication for the Village, and for the homeowner with the longstanding homestead exemption is that the Village collects only the tax the homeowner is required to pay, which is inadequate, and the homeowner's tax can increase every year, but only by 3%. So those homeowners will experience a tax increase even when assessments are falling and homestead exemptions are doubling, because they're so far behind real value.
This, then, is what the Commission and the Manager confronted when they had to agree to a TRIM. The question for Commissioners was what is the maximum possible property tax they should consider assessing. Obviously, this depended in part on how much they all thought the Village would need, which is a guess. Other factors included what anyone thought would happen to assessments and the rate of foreclosures, which is also a guess, and what kind of number, in terms of the sound of the number, they wanted to pick. This is not a rational factor, but it's there.
Now before we go further with this discussion, we need to keep something in mind. It's sort of critical to deciding how to approach the matter of the TRIM. The Village of Biscayne Park is an unusual, if not almost unique, place. We have fewer and more limited sources of revenue than most places do. We have no businesses, no industry, and no opportunity to assess tolls on people. We're on our own. The clearest demonstration of this fact is that we derive 5/6 of our entire revenue by charging ourselves. Half of the Village's revenue comes from the property tax, and an additional third comes from utility Franchise Fees. All of this is just our money, which we give to ourselves. Another illustration of our special character, and the fact that we know it, like it, and prefer it that way, came also from last night's Commission meeting. The matter of fences was discussed, especially the prospect of fences in front yards. Almost no one favored the idea. Almost every resident who spoke expressed a fondness for a quaint, open, charming neighborhood, different from nearby neighborhoods or even from any neighborhoods. So the bottom line is we have to fend for ourselves if we like ourselves the way we are, and we want to keep us that way.
Fifteen or 16 months ago, we made a decision. We signed a Franchise Agreement with FPL. This was a major bullet we dodged. Had we not signed, FPL would not have collected the Franchise Fee, which it returns to us, accounting for part of that third of our revenue. To make matters worse, the County would have collected the Fee from us anyway, and there is a reasonable likelihood it would not have returned the money to us. This would have cost us about $120K per year in Village revenue. Those who agitated not to sign the Agreement (amazingly, there were such people) suggested we could capture the revenue in some other way, leaving us to pay the amount twice, instead of once, but no other legitimate and reliable method was offered. So more rational heads prevailed, and a bullet was dodged.
Last night, we were not quite so lucky. We caught a bullet. The wound was not fatal, but it will be damaging. Recall those four numbers. Our currect millage is 8.9933 mills. This has produced a certain level of revenue for the past year, but at the same millage rate, the revenue goes down, because more devaluation has occurred in the past year. An alternate proposal was to charge ourselves at the rate of 9.2661 mills, which takes a higher percentage of a lower valuation and results in the same tax bill for homeowners and the same revenue we had this past year. Yet another proposal was based on the understanding that the TRIM is a maximum possible tax, which can be lowered after further exploration if necessary, and is respecful of the fact that the budget is only a guess anyway. So the suggestion was to declare the highest TRIM allowable, at 10 mills, and this could be lowered if we found on closer inspection of the budget that we could get along on less. And the TRIM, for statutory reasons, can be lowered after it's set, but it can't be raised.
So these three suggestions had an at least loose rationale. One represents the rate we've been living with, even though the tax decreases because assessed values have decreased. Another represents an adjustment that allows the Village to receive the same revenue it lived on last year. This doesn't take into account that things tend to get more expensive over time, but there's an at least loose theory to attach to. The last proposal was in many ways the most sensible. Since we can always lower the final agreed tax rate from whatever the TRIM guess was, since we haven't scrutinized the budget, and since we've already had to take money from the reserve, why not set the TRIM as high as we can? Each of these, then, has a kind of meaning and logic.
The one proposal that had no meaning, no logic, and disrespected the rising costs of things, the Manager's efforts to date to economize, the fact that we have frozen many wages in the Village, and the fact that we have already invaded the reserve, was the proposal to set the TRIM, the highest possible tax rate, at 8.90. This is below what it is now, which itself pinches us further than we have been pinched already. And the number was completely arbitrary and was intended to apply irrevocable pressure on the Manager, all Village employees, and the Village as a collection of residents. Had that TRIM been accepted, the injury would have affected vital organs. The Commission had enough wisdom not to shoot itself, and the rest of us, quite that directly. It did not, however, have enough wisdom to do the patently sensible thing, and adopt the 10 mill TRIM, or even the revenue-neutral thing, and adopt 9.2661. So we're left with 8.9933, which is less this year than it was last year, which prevents us from giving appropriate raises to all of our employees, which does not allow us to keep our facilities in top condition, which does not allow us to make improvements most of us agree need to be made, and which causes us to relieve fiscal pressure at the expense of the reserve.
So not a great night for our Commission. Why the "whew?" It could have been worse. We could have made a suicide attempt last year, and foregone the FPL Franchise Fee, and we could have finished the job by adopting a completely irrational TRIM last night. So "whew!" Sad, huh?
The Village has had some tough times in recent years, as have all municipalities. There have been foreclosures, which produce no property tax, and general devaluation, which means that the assessed values have dropped, for no reality-based reason, and therefore so has the tax. In addition, the homestead exemption, which is an amount that is not subjected to taxation, was doubled. So the Village has three sources of revenue loss. There is one kind of property that has not only not produced less tax, it has produced more tax than the year before. These are properties that were purchased sufficiently long ago, at low enough price, with homestead exemption in place, so that the tax owed in a market of rising real estate values soon enough was under the standard for like-market value properties. Just to illustrate this, if someone bought a property for $100K years ago, and fixed the tax rate through homestead exemption, and through increasing real estate values, that property is now worth $350, the tax paid is based on the original purchase price, not the current market value. If the homeowner sells the house for $350K, the new owner will pay a much higher property tax, for the exact same property. The implication for the Village, and for the homeowner with the longstanding homestead exemption is that the Village collects only the tax the homeowner is required to pay, which is inadequate, and the homeowner's tax can increase every year, but only by 3%. So those homeowners will experience a tax increase even when assessments are falling and homestead exemptions are doubling, because they're so far behind real value.
This, then, is what the Commission and the Manager confronted when they had to agree to a TRIM. The question for Commissioners was what is the maximum possible property tax they should consider assessing. Obviously, this depended in part on how much they all thought the Village would need, which is a guess. Other factors included what anyone thought would happen to assessments and the rate of foreclosures, which is also a guess, and what kind of number, in terms of the sound of the number, they wanted to pick. This is not a rational factor, but it's there.
Now before we go further with this discussion, we need to keep something in mind. It's sort of critical to deciding how to approach the matter of the TRIM. The Village of Biscayne Park is an unusual, if not almost unique, place. We have fewer and more limited sources of revenue than most places do. We have no businesses, no industry, and no opportunity to assess tolls on people. We're on our own. The clearest demonstration of this fact is that we derive 5/6 of our entire revenue by charging ourselves. Half of the Village's revenue comes from the property tax, and an additional third comes from utility Franchise Fees. All of this is just our money, which we give to ourselves. Another illustration of our special character, and the fact that we know it, like it, and prefer it that way, came also from last night's Commission meeting. The matter of fences was discussed, especially the prospect of fences in front yards. Almost no one favored the idea. Almost every resident who spoke expressed a fondness for a quaint, open, charming neighborhood, different from nearby neighborhoods or even from any neighborhoods. So the bottom line is we have to fend for ourselves if we like ourselves the way we are, and we want to keep us that way.
Fifteen or 16 months ago, we made a decision. We signed a Franchise Agreement with FPL. This was a major bullet we dodged. Had we not signed, FPL would not have collected the Franchise Fee, which it returns to us, accounting for part of that third of our revenue. To make matters worse, the County would have collected the Fee from us anyway, and there is a reasonable likelihood it would not have returned the money to us. This would have cost us about $120K per year in Village revenue. Those who agitated not to sign the Agreement (amazingly, there were such people) suggested we could capture the revenue in some other way, leaving us to pay the amount twice, instead of once, but no other legitimate and reliable method was offered. So more rational heads prevailed, and a bullet was dodged.
Last night, we were not quite so lucky. We caught a bullet. The wound was not fatal, but it will be damaging. Recall those four numbers. Our currect millage is 8.9933 mills. This has produced a certain level of revenue for the past year, but at the same millage rate, the revenue goes down, because more devaluation has occurred in the past year. An alternate proposal was to charge ourselves at the rate of 9.2661 mills, which takes a higher percentage of a lower valuation and results in the same tax bill for homeowners and the same revenue we had this past year. Yet another proposal was based on the understanding that the TRIM is a maximum possible tax, which can be lowered after further exploration if necessary, and is respecful of the fact that the budget is only a guess anyway. So the suggestion was to declare the highest TRIM allowable, at 10 mills, and this could be lowered if we found on closer inspection of the budget that we could get along on less. And the TRIM, for statutory reasons, can be lowered after it's set, but it can't be raised.
So these three suggestions had an at least loose rationale. One represents the rate we've been living with, even though the tax decreases because assessed values have decreased. Another represents an adjustment that allows the Village to receive the same revenue it lived on last year. This doesn't take into account that things tend to get more expensive over time, but there's an at least loose theory to attach to. The last proposal was in many ways the most sensible. Since we can always lower the final agreed tax rate from whatever the TRIM guess was, since we haven't scrutinized the budget, and since we've already had to take money from the reserve, why not set the TRIM as high as we can? Each of these, then, has a kind of meaning and logic.
The one proposal that had no meaning, no logic, and disrespected the rising costs of things, the Manager's efforts to date to economize, the fact that we have frozen many wages in the Village, and the fact that we have already invaded the reserve, was the proposal to set the TRIM, the highest possible tax rate, at 8.90. This is below what it is now, which itself pinches us further than we have been pinched already. And the number was completely arbitrary and was intended to apply irrevocable pressure on the Manager, all Village employees, and the Village as a collection of residents. Had that TRIM been accepted, the injury would have affected vital organs. The Commission had enough wisdom not to shoot itself, and the rest of us, quite that directly. It did not, however, have enough wisdom to do the patently sensible thing, and adopt the 10 mill TRIM, or even the revenue-neutral thing, and adopt 9.2661. So we're left with 8.9933, which is less this year than it was last year, which prevents us from giving appropriate raises to all of our employees, which does not allow us to keep our facilities in top condition, which does not allow us to make improvements most of us agree need to be made, and which causes us to relieve fiscal pressure at the expense of the reserve.
So not a great night for our Commission. Why the "whew?" It could have been worse. We could have made a suicide attempt last year, and foregone the FPL Franchise Fee, and we could have finished the job by adopting a completely irrational TRIM last night. So "whew!" Sad, huh?
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Oh, Dan. Now What? You're as Bad as I am.
Dear Mayor and Commissioners:
As you enter the budget deliberation season I would like you to consider giving yourself room for more upward movement in the Millage Rate than what is recommended by the Manager. Please have respect for that portion of the electorate that may want the opportunity to make a case for increased expenditures in the budget during the budget hearings. As you all are well aware, setting the maximum millage rate at a lower point than might ultimately be desired by residents before the public hearings in September, disenfranchises those that may wish for a better community at the cost of increased taxes. A mockery of the public hearing process is made by not giving yourselves and Village residents the flexibility to lobby for increased spending as well as additional reductions.
I am aware that some of you have made public commitments not to raise taxes, however a vote to allow a higher millage rate to go to the County will not violate that promise as you can honor your commitment in the votes that you make during the public hearing process. During the next and in future election cycles, I for one will remember those who show me and others respect by giving us the opportunity to have a meaningful voice in the budgetary process.
Sincerely,
Daniel Keys
So advises Dan Keys. Makes an interesting debate.
On the one hand: the Village needs money; residents have recently been given a considerable reduction in assessed value of their homes, and a doubling of the homestead exemption, so that some of us are paying less property tax than we did, for reasons that have nothing to do with the real value of our homes or our earning potential; others of us locked in such a low property tax, through homestead exemptions begun many years ago, that even with the lowered values and the double homestead exemption, we were so far behind current economics that our property taxes actually increased; under present economics, the Village operates on a shoestring, leaving us with miserable medians and no upgrades anywhere, unless someone decides to donate something. We have no other reliable way to raise revenue than by increasing the property tax. (See my "What's it Worth?," but I don't think it got any traction.) Property taxes result in half of what the Village lives on. Utility franchise fees provide an additional 1/3. The rest is small stuff and not reliable. So our choices are raise property taxes and/or franchise fees, or suffer reductions in services. We've done some of the latter. One area where there is more room to save is the police. This department is our single biggest expense, accounting for half of what we spend. We already underpay them, compared to other municipalities, and we have about two officers per shift. We can decide we don't want that much protection, and we can reduce salaries further and reduce the size of the force. It's most likely no one would work here for less than we're paying now. And no resident, even the most ardent complainers about taxes, has ever suggested having less police presence. So we may have backed ourselves into a corner. There is one other choice, which our Manager has begun. We can economize, streamline, and make more efficient. There's a certain amount of that that can happen, but it's limited. Once we cut what can be cut, fire who can be fired, and freeze wages, we're done. At that point, we're not doing what needs to be done to retain valued employees, and we make ourselves vulnerable to losing talent to someone else who will pay more. And we threaten the concept of reserve.
On the other hand, there are reasons not to increase taxes and the millage rate. The main reason is the obvious reason: the tax is higher. Most people don't want to pay a higher tax, and some can't afford to. There may be marginal homeowners who could pay property tax if it was 8.99 mills, but not if was 10 mills. Other reasons are less specific, and have to do with the image of a municipality where the tax rate suggests it is expensive to live. The idea is that prospective home buyers might shy away from a municipality that had a high tax rate. Then, there is the long term complication of stressing out homeowners. The central complication, which is active here and many other places now, is a high rate of foreclosures, which not only have a depressing effect on the neighborhood, but they don't provide any tax at all.
We are a unique, and functionally limited, neighborhood. We need money, as everyone does, and we have very few ways to get it. As a general theme, the people who choose to live here do so because they particularly like the character of the neighborhood. We used to function on more of a shoestring than we do now, and at that, we were temporarily mismanaged into the red. We're in the black now (I assume everyone would agree that's a good thing), and we have extra expenses. The Charter Review Committee, followed by the Commission at the time (5 or so years ago), gave us a new form of management, which required a professional Manager. This was a new and considerable expense. Our current Manager has worked very hard and well to keep us afloat, and she has gone out on a limb or two to do it. For example, she has frozen wages for all Village employees. This works well for us, in terms of preventing one area of increase of expenses, but it can't work too well for the employees. They can't go to Publix or anyplace else, say they work for VBP, and ask that prices remain fixed, because their income is. So at some point, we become a problem employer to them.
As for those who choose to live here, do we want to accommodate the most marginal among us, with the resulting implications for the neighborhood? We say, in Planning and Zoning and the Code Review Committee, that we want a respectable, if not high, level of style and maintenance, but we may be unlikely to get it if we hogtie ourselves in terms both of revenues and a level of property owner capacity. And if someone says he can't pay his tax at 10 mills, but only at 8.99, what will he do when his tax goes up every year anyway, by 3%?
So I think Dan Keys makes an interesting and potentially compelling argument. Nobody likes to pay taxes. Almost all of us can. We live in a specialized neighborhood, and most of us chose it because of its specialness. I've mentioned this example before, but I used to live in the Town of Brookline, Massachusetts. The Town prided itself on it's schools. In Massachusetts, the schools are run by the municipality, not the County or the Commonwealth. And there were statutes, like there are here, limiting the municipality's ability to increase property taxes, unless the municipality overrode the limitation. Brookline always voted, by referendum, to override, because it wanted good schools. The residents of the Town understood that it was on them, and for their benefit, to support the schools to the level they wanted them, and they voted to pay higher taxes to do it. It was important to them.
So if our lifestyle is important to us, we have to consider Dan's proposal. And we're not talking about overriding a ceiling. We're not even at the ceiling. That's Dan's point. If we keep doing what we're doing, we will at some point lose our police or shrink the force, we will lose our employees, and we will probably lose our Manager soon enough anyway. Almost anybody will pay her more than we do. And this is all for the sake of money that we'll all pay some day anyway. For a frame of reference, if a property is assessed at $350K, and $50K are exempted (homestead), the difference between a millage of 8.99 and 10 is about $300 per year.
Not to be heartless to our most limited neighbors, perhaps we could agree that if we do tax properties beyond what some neighbors can actually afford, they can apply to us for relief. Maybe our Manager and Finance Director could review applications and tax returns to see if a certain neighbor really can't afford an increase, and we can make an exception for that occasional neighbor.
Food for thought.
Friday, July 15, 2011
In love? Schoolboy style.
I think we should say it's official. One of our Commissioners has a distinct thing for the Village Manager. It appears he's had it from the beginning. Could it have been love at first sight? Could have.
The Commissioner had an initial reaction much different from that of anyone else who saw and heard the prospective Manager. Everyone else was openly enthralled. Of the several candidates for new Manager, the one we chose was at the top of everyone's list. Everyone talked about it. Well, almost everyone. Not our hero. He didn't like her. There was some question as to whether he had someone else in mind, but he definitely did not get bitten by the bug that bit everyone else. Or so it seemed. Have you seen a toddler or pretoddler who doesn't want to eat his Gerber's pureed broccoli? He purses his lips, turns away, and shakes his head "NO!" That's what we're talking about. One of our boy's colleagues had to ask him to vote for her anyway, after his initial, and lone, no vote, so we could welcome the new Manager unanimously. As a courtesy to her. Yeah, OK, he grudgingly complied. And from those auspicious beginnings, it's been steeply downhill.
Our new Manager is a regular adult. She's not into playing games, she doesn't set booby traps for people she doesn't like, and she doesn't wear pigtails a mischievous lad could pull. So our boy seems out of place in dealing with her as if she were a coveted schoolgirl. Is our new Manager smart, accomplished, business-like, and "popular" among the residents, her coworkers, and the rest of the Commission? Well, in fact, yes, she is. And those may be reasons for some to feel a bit of envy for her talents. But adults appreciate that in her. They don't try to punish her for it. If a resident or a Commissioner comes to feel, or realize, that other residents like the Manager more than they like the resident or Commissioner, the resident/Commissioner learns to smile about it. Gross jealousy, and a campaign to undermine, are way out of line. No adult would carry on that way.
So our lad has devoted himself to precisely that negative approach. He has argued with and attempted to obstruct every move the Manager makes. He criticizes absolutely everything. Last year, there was a flap about our Finance Director at the time. For reasons that have never been revealed, a reporter from a local tabloid contacted only our boy, among five Commissioners, to ask what he knew about the Finance Director, and how he reacted to the flap. And did our boy register a complaint? Of course. But the complaint was not about the then Finance Director. It was about the Manager, on whom he has this unflinching fixation.
Also last year, the Manager was due to be evaluated, by the Commission and by the whole neighborhood. Resident after resident came to the podium to compliment the Manager and express appreciation for her, and in frankly glowing terms. Anyone was welcome to respond in any way at all, and no one had anything but good to say. Three Commissioners provided their own feedback, some informally, and some in a more formal "report" style. All were much more than satisfied. They, too, were glowing. One Commissioner, who appears to have abandoned his post in a relatively pervasive way, never provided the evaluation it was his responsibility to do. Our lad? Not so fast. He had plenty to point out. And it was nothing but criticism. He had insights no one else could see. He gave very, very poor marks. Either he's an insightful and perspicacious genius, seeing and knowing far beyond what the rest of us do, or he's grossly and pathetically out of step.
Last week, at the Commission meeting, he managed to find some way to accuse the Manager of failure of leadership. If there's one area in which the Manager excels above all others, it's leadership. She is pro-active, she rallies and unifies all other Village employees, for some of whom she provides considerable supervision, she makes bold decisions, and she gets things done. But no, our lad saw what no one else could see: she is a failed "leader."
And our Commissioner friend does not keep these valuable insights to himself. I have spoken directly to two residents, and heard about another, who know how inept and tyrannical the Manager is, because our boy tells them. None of these residents come to meetings. They just rely on our lad to tell them what's really going on.
Now as personal as our lad's antipathy seems to be, I do consider the possibility that his sabotage and muck-raking might be more general. For example, in his several years on the Commission, spanning the tenures of two Managers and two significantly different Commissions, he has never voted in favor of approving a budget. He has voted against every one of them. His opposition used to be 1-4, but now that he's found a little playmate, it's 2-3. He never says he's refusing budgets categorically, as if he denied the process of presenting budgets. He always claims it's about something faulty in the budgets. They're never perfect enough. They're apparently good enough for everyone else, and they provide the Village with a framework for its fiscal functioning, but our boy sees things that don't completely please him. So he votes against the budgets. Invariably. I was giving my son an analogy about exactly this kind of logical error. The analogy went like this: suppose you need a car. You simply must have one. So you begin shopping for one. You research many cars, from many companies, and you test drive them all. At the end of your explorations, you summarize, thanks to the careful and comprehensive notes you made, that each car is imperfect, and you don't buy any of them. If you wind up feeling that you have "succeeded," in avoiding coming to own an imperfect car, you need to take a step back and realize that in fact, you "failed." Your need was to get a car, and you didn't get one.
In the present case, we have a Village Manager, whether our lad wanted her or not, she's terrific, whether he likes her or not, and we have provided for ourselves yearly budget after yearly budget, whether our boy approves of them or finds them flawed. So his failures, which he twists in his mind to be missed successes, do not become our failures. This is good. It's just too bad about the drag. To carry the car analogy one step further, you can drive a car with the emergency brake on, but it's difficult, it's an unpleasant ride, and it uses way too much gas.
The Commissioner had an initial reaction much different from that of anyone else who saw and heard the prospective Manager. Everyone else was openly enthralled. Of the several candidates for new Manager, the one we chose was at the top of everyone's list. Everyone talked about it. Well, almost everyone. Not our hero. He didn't like her. There was some question as to whether he had someone else in mind, but he definitely did not get bitten by the bug that bit everyone else. Or so it seemed. Have you seen a toddler or pretoddler who doesn't want to eat his Gerber's pureed broccoli? He purses his lips, turns away, and shakes his head "NO!" That's what we're talking about. One of our boy's colleagues had to ask him to vote for her anyway, after his initial, and lone, no vote, so we could welcome the new Manager unanimously. As a courtesy to her. Yeah, OK, he grudgingly complied. And from those auspicious beginnings, it's been steeply downhill.
Our new Manager is a regular adult. She's not into playing games, she doesn't set booby traps for people she doesn't like, and she doesn't wear pigtails a mischievous lad could pull. So our boy seems out of place in dealing with her as if she were a coveted schoolgirl. Is our new Manager smart, accomplished, business-like, and "popular" among the residents, her coworkers, and the rest of the Commission? Well, in fact, yes, she is. And those may be reasons for some to feel a bit of envy for her talents. But adults appreciate that in her. They don't try to punish her for it. If a resident or a Commissioner comes to feel, or realize, that other residents like the Manager more than they like the resident or Commissioner, the resident/Commissioner learns to smile about it. Gross jealousy, and a campaign to undermine, are way out of line. No adult would carry on that way.
So our lad has devoted himself to precisely that negative approach. He has argued with and attempted to obstruct every move the Manager makes. He criticizes absolutely everything. Last year, there was a flap about our Finance Director at the time. For reasons that have never been revealed, a reporter from a local tabloid contacted only our boy, among five Commissioners, to ask what he knew about the Finance Director, and how he reacted to the flap. And did our boy register a complaint? Of course. But the complaint was not about the then Finance Director. It was about the Manager, on whom he has this unflinching fixation.
Also last year, the Manager was due to be evaluated, by the Commission and by the whole neighborhood. Resident after resident came to the podium to compliment the Manager and express appreciation for her, and in frankly glowing terms. Anyone was welcome to respond in any way at all, and no one had anything but good to say. Three Commissioners provided their own feedback, some informally, and some in a more formal "report" style. All were much more than satisfied. They, too, were glowing. One Commissioner, who appears to have abandoned his post in a relatively pervasive way, never provided the evaluation it was his responsibility to do. Our lad? Not so fast. He had plenty to point out. And it was nothing but criticism. He had insights no one else could see. He gave very, very poor marks. Either he's an insightful and perspicacious genius, seeing and knowing far beyond what the rest of us do, or he's grossly and pathetically out of step.
Last week, at the Commission meeting, he managed to find some way to accuse the Manager of failure of leadership. If there's one area in which the Manager excels above all others, it's leadership. She is pro-active, she rallies and unifies all other Village employees, for some of whom she provides considerable supervision, she makes bold decisions, and she gets things done. But no, our lad saw what no one else could see: she is a failed "leader."
And our Commissioner friend does not keep these valuable insights to himself. I have spoken directly to two residents, and heard about another, who know how inept and tyrannical the Manager is, because our boy tells them. None of these residents come to meetings. They just rely on our lad to tell them what's really going on.
Now as personal as our lad's antipathy seems to be, I do consider the possibility that his sabotage and muck-raking might be more general. For example, in his several years on the Commission, spanning the tenures of two Managers and two significantly different Commissions, he has never voted in favor of approving a budget. He has voted against every one of them. His opposition used to be 1-4, but now that he's found a little playmate, it's 2-3. He never says he's refusing budgets categorically, as if he denied the process of presenting budgets. He always claims it's about something faulty in the budgets. They're never perfect enough. They're apparently good enough for everyone else, and they provide the Village with a framework for its fiscal functioning, but our boy sees things that don't completely please him. So he votes against the budgets. Invariably. I was giving my son an analogy about exactly this kind of logical error. The analogy went like this: suppose you need a car. You simply must have one. So you begin shopping for one. You research many cars, from many companies, and you test drive them all. At the end of your explorations, you summarize, thanks to the careful and comprehensive notes you made, that each car is imperfect, and you don't buy any of them. If you wind up feeling that you have "succeeded," in avoiding coming to own an imperfect car, you need to take a step back and realize that in fact, you "failed." Your need was to get a car, and you didn't get one.
In the present case, we have a Village Manager, whether our lad wanted her or not, she's terrific, whether he likes her or not, and we have provided for ourselves yearly budget after yearly budget, whether our boy approves of them or finds them flawed. So his failures, which he twists in his mind to be missed successes, do not become our failures. This is good. It's just too bad about the drag. To carry the car analogy one step further, you can drive a car with the emergency brake on, but it's difficult, it's an unpleasant ride, and it uses way too much gas.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
More Power to Us?
I'm at a very early phase with this comment, because I'm not sure what to expect. Various streets and avenues in the Village are going to be outfitted with new power poles. The old ones are wood, brown, and comparatively low. The new ones are concrete, light grey, and higher than the old ones. And because the new ones are stronger, there will be fewer of them than there are of the old poles along the route where they will be placed.
One of those routes is 119th Street, which is where I live. If I can assume those three short wood stakes with the white flags and the writing indicate where the new poles will go (which is what I've been told), there will be one directly in front of my house. The marker poles are within the property. I'm guessing the new pole won't be. I imagine it will be in the swale, where the old pole is. This would be good, because it will mean no trees will have to be removed from our yard to make room for the new pole.
As it turns out, we have a disagreement at our house about the presumed new pole. Jane doesn't want it. She thinks it will be too imposing, and she doesn't like the color. I do want it. It will be more stable than the old pole, so it's less likely we will lose power in a storm. Also, if it really is higher, the top, with the power lines, will be more invisible, because it will be above the trees. And speaking of which, FPL will not butcher our poinciana to keep it away from the lines. The new height will obviate the need for butchery.
I would have preferred buried lines, but the Commission at the time a discount was offered to bury the lines wasn't interested. But higher lines is a good enough second choice. There is, however, a slight complication. The old poles don't come out the day the new poles go in. To be more precise, they don't come out the day the new poles are wired. The reason is that the old poles carry more than FPL lines. They carry ATT lines, and Comcast lines. So someone decided the old poles could not come out until ATT and Comcast move their lines to the new poles. The problem is that it isn't clear what would motivate them to move their lines, and we're not forcing them. I view this as a significant problem. It costs ATT and Comcast trouble and money to move their lines, and it may not be clear to them that it's worth it. Or why it is. We could have forced the issue by telling ATT and Comcast on what day the old poles are coming out, and they're welcome to move their lines before that day if they don't want to lose them, but for some reason, the Commission didn't decide to be that assertive. They just said they'd like the lines moved by a certain number of days or weeks after the new poles are installed, but they didn't provide an incentive or a consequence if the lines weren't moved. So I hope I'm not stuck with two poles for who knows how long. The old pole isn't bad, and the new one will be better, but I definitely don't want both. We have some double poles already, I think, but I don't know of any old poles that have been removed yet. Once the new poles are in, the old ones really need to come out.
I have a friend who paints really nice tromps-l'oeil. I wonder if FPL would let me hire her to paint up the new pole, so it looks like vines or trees or something. I'll have to ask them.
One of those routes is 119th Street, which is where I live. If I can assume those three short wood stakes with the white flags and the writing indicate where the new poles will go (which is what I've been told), there will be one directly in front of my house. The marker poles are within the property. I'm guessing the new pole won't be. I imagine it will be in the swale, where the old pole is. This would be good, because it will mean no trees will have to be removed from our yard to make room for the new pole.
As it turns out, we have a disagreement at our house about the presumed new pole. Jane doesn't want it. She thinks it will be too imposing, and she doesn't like the color. I do want it. It will be more stable than the old pole, so it's less likely we will lose power in a storm. Also, if it really is higher, the top, with the power lines, will be more invisible, because it will be above the trees. And speaking of which, FPL will not butcher our poinciana to keep it away from the lines. The new height will obviate the need for butchery.
I would have preferred buried lines, but the Commission at the time a discount was offered to bury the lines wasn't interested. But higher lines is a good enough second choice. There is, however, a slight complication. The old poles don't come out the day the new poles go in. To be more precise, they don't come out the day the new poles are wired. The reason is that the old poles carry more than FPL lines. They carry ATT lines, and Comcast lines. So someone decided the old poles could not come out until ATT and Comcast move their lines to the new poles. The problem is that it isn't clear what would motivate them to move their lines, and we're not forcing them. I view this as a significant problem. It costs ATT and Comcast trouble and money to move their lines, and it may not be clear to them that it's worth it. Or why it is. We could have forced the issue by telling ATT and Comcast on what day the old poles are coming out, and they're welcome to move their lines before that day if they don't want to lose them, but for some reason, the Commission didn't decide to be that assertive. They just said they'd like the lines moved by a certain number of days or weeks after the new poles are installed, but they didn't provide an incentive or a consequence if the lines weren't moved. So I hope I'm not stuck with two poles for who knows how long. The old pole isn't bad, and the new one will be better, but I definitely don't want both. We have some double poles already, I think, but I don't know of any old poles that have been removed yet. Once the new poles are in, the old ones really need to come out.
I have a friend who paints really nice tromps-l'oeil. I wonder if FPL would let me hire her to paint up the new pole, so it looks like vines or trees or something. I'll have to ask them.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Schools, schools, schools, schools, schools.
So someone might open a school in Biscayne Park. Or someone will open a school in BP. At best, it kind of remains to be seen. Let's take it at best. For now.
BP was incorporated in 1933. The Church of the Resurrection was built in 1940. So it wasn't here from the outset, but it's been here a long time. Biscayne Park is almost 100% residential. If "commercial" implies signs and parking, then we only have one official non-residential phenomenon. The Church. I really don't know the history of this Episcopal Church. When I moved here in July, 2005, it was gasping for air. Last gasps, maybe. Apparently, no one much attended church there. The Episcopal Diocese doesn't confide in me, so I don't know what they were thinking to do about this. Sometimes, churches or temples close down for lack of a congregation. I have no idea if this idea crossed the Monsignor's mind. But what did happen is that the reportedly adorable Father Cutie became available, the Episcopals picked up his option from the Catholics, and it seemed some life might be breathed into the little 'ol CoR. Right, it seemed like it.
But evidently not life enough. So we got a new proposal from the Church this month. They've apparently been in talks with the Mater Academy (pronounced matter, spells like the Latin for mother, although all those involved claim no religious affiliation or theme. OK.) about a Charter School, which is apparently what Mater does. We heard preK-8, then preK-5, then preK-2. We heard 180 kids and a new two storey building, and we heard 50-60 kids and just upgrading what they have. We heard August, 2011 (yeah, this August, as in about a month from now), and we heard maybe not so soon. So who knows. The only thing we do know is that there is a plan, and the plan is to provide the Church with money, and Mater Academy with another outlet. Somewhere along the way, there was some vague allusion about what this is supposed to do for the Village and residents of Biscayne Park. And we need to discuss this.
But first, let's consider a school at the corner of 6th and Griffing. It's our extreme southern corner. Think what's just over the 6th Avenue bridge from there. There's Miami Country Day School. Another two blocks down the street, there's a public elementary school. Nearby, there's St Rose, and a Montessori school. Several blocks west on 103rd, there's another elementary school. A mile north and east, and it's WJ Bryan. A little closer than that, there's another school. So there needs to be another elementary school? Among seven elementary or earlier schools, all within a few miles of each other, we need another? And it should be in Biscayne Park, which normally distinguishes itself by being (almost 100%) residential? The other schools are not all free, and they're not all A+ quality, but they're quite servicable to our community, and we've relied on them for decades. It wouldn't be hard to conclude that the anomaly is not that we don't have a school in BP, but that we have anything at all other than homes. The anomaly is the church, not the absence of a Charter school. By definition, the church is not in itself a going concern. It needs to take in boarders to stay afloat. If BP'ers, or anyone, valued the church as a place to worship, it would have an adequate congregation, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. We need one less church, not one more school.
But let's be fair, and consider pros and cons. The cons of a school, compounding a church: it creates more traffic at an already difficult intersection, it expands the very limited non-residential feature of BP, which we say we don't want, and it revives a church that appears to have had inadequate value in this neighborhood for what it was. The pros of a school here: it gives BP kids of a certain age a place to go to school, right in their own neighborhood, and (I've heard this), it clogs up a difficult intersection, so "cut-throughs" won't use it for commuting. In that sense, it cures one traffic problem by superimposing another. As for providing a school for BP kids and employees' kids, is it a big advantage to have such a school a couple of blocks or so closer than the usual alternatives? And do we have enough kids, on a successive basis, to make use of such an advantage?
Now before I say what I'm thinking, I have to throw a major monkey wrench into this. Our Village Attorney, John Hearn, was probably strategic and careful in letting slip that the State, under its strengthened right-wing regime, has declared that charter schools do not have to comply with the usual rules regarding zoning, if they are within certain other properties, like churches. They also are exempt from paying for building permits. In short, the church can do whatever it wants with respect to hosting a school, even a secular school, on its property. School and church representatives came to the Commission meeting, and made a humble proposal as a show of diplomacy, not because they are in any way constrained by what the Village and its residents want. The Monsignor said, in a Herald Neighbors article yesterday, that "all...issues are resolvable," and that church and school are "more than willing to bend over backwards to accommodate the Village," but the fact is they can do what they want. They are under no requirement, or real pressure, to accommodate anyone. Several Village residents commented about the plan for a school, and every one of them spoke against the idea. Is the church/school willing to bend so far backwards that they would decide against the idea of a school if Village residents didn't want one? The plan is for a "workshop," to further consider the matter, but this could all be a formality. We will have to see. The church was openly accused of not having been a "good neighbor" to the Village, and it has the authority to be as bad a neighbor as it wishes.
What I'm thinking is this: the church wants to remain a church. It can't manage for itself, so it wants to rent its grounds to a school. Sounds like typical business considerations to me. And no problem. But is there really any reason all of this should happen in Biscayne Park? The Park, as a potential congregation, has made clear it isn't interested in the church end of this. We have a surfeit of schools, more than conveniently located for Park residents. So why don't we offer to buy the church and its grounds from the church, they can go a block or two over the bridge, and there, in a perfectly consonant surroundings, they can rebuild a church, and outfit it to accommodate a school. This part of town will have a veritable ample garden of schools: all the choice in the world for kids not yet of high school age. And we can sell off the lots for homes, which is what we prefer ("Biscayne Park: The Village of Homes"). We will convert the lots from occupants who pay no property tax to occupants who pay property tax. Which we also need. This way, everyone is satisfied.
The church and its intended tenant came to us in seeming honor, to ask for our opinion, or perhaps blessing (?). Both of them clearly want this affiliation, it's clear why, and they might want us to accept their plan. Thus far, we have made it clear we don't want what they want. At a "workshop," we might make it even more clear, or perhaps those of us who come to the workshop will wind up feeling more hospitable. But the question is, if the church/school clearly want the school, and the Village clearly doesn't, what happens? Does the trump card up the church's sleeve get played? We shall surely see.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)