The Foundation has worked to find an accessible, but satisfying, goal for its fund-raising. Our theory is that our neighbors would sooner and more enthusiastically contribute to their Foundation, which is really only themselves, if they had in mind a clear picture of how the money would be spent. "What are you planning to do with the money?" is a very frequent question when we solicit donations. So we have a loose list of ideas and theories as to how money would be spent, and we recite them to people. They're usually vague and hypothetical, and often enough, they can be grand schemes. So we applied ourselves to getting real about a goal.
Some of our goals are too small to be captivating. They can require as little as a few hundred dollars. Sometimes, we thought of projects that really cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. None of these satisfied those we solicited, and none of them really satisfied us. And sometimes, we tried to attach ourselves to accessible projects, just because they were accessible, not because they were such good ideas.
We relied primarily on others to suggest projects. We had no special way to come up with ideas ourselves, unless it was some idiosyncratic idea, like my public art obsession. But we would hear, either individually or in the context of a Foundation meeting, about others' ideas or others' wishes. And our job was to react to an idea, and experience interpersonal resonance to it.
The winning idea was the following: The park has a tot lot (it sort of has two of them), and the surface of that lot is mulch. Mixed into the mulch is (reportedly) excrement from pets or wild animals, and there is a sprinkling of cigarette butts. There seemed to be pretty good agreement that this surface needed to be replaced. Not with new mulch, which would suffer the same fate as the old mulch, but with something else.
We decided resurfacing the tot lot was just the project for us. It's not a small cost, and it's a stretch at about $30,000, but we felt it would be a wonderful improvement for the neighborhood, and it's something that wasn't exactly a pie in the sky financially. Not easy, but not impossible.
So thanks for your participation ($20 per household per year) if you've been a contributing neighbor, and welcome aboard if you haven't yet. For a project of this financial magnitude, we'll have to extend ourselves, and we will look for outside sponsors as well. But remember, the Foundation is you. It's ourselves. And its fruits are for our enrichment. So give us your best consideration. It's consideration you're really giving yourself.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Some Clarification about My Friend, Our Visitor
I recently mentioned an out of town visitor who attended one of our Commission meetings. She had heard from me about the Commission, she reads this blog, she had some reservations about how accurate was my description of the dynamics and personnel, and she "wouldn't miss" seeing this for herself.
She later told me not only that I was unexpectedly, and somewhat disturbingly, accurate in my description, but that frankly, she wouldn't fully have believed it had she not seen it herself. One word she used was "disgusting," and she particularly cited and indicted "your [our] Mayor." He wasn't on a rampage that day, just doing what he does. She was also very unimpressed with Commissioner Dr Cooper. Or maybe she found him depressing.
But these specific insights and observations are almost beside the point. She had an overarching message for me and for us. Telling it to me was preaching to the choir. I've said it ad nauseum myself. The message to all of us was that it seemed to her essential that Villagers attend these meetings. Even once. Even just for part of a meeting. She felt it was undermining to democracy and to public participation in the governing process for people not to see what they elected.
So I've said it before, and I'll say it again: PLEASE COME TO COMMISSION MEETINGS!!! Most likely, and sadly, the people who are the most likely readers of this blog already come to Commission meetings. So I'm preaching to the choir, too. But if there are any readers of this blog who don't come to Commission meetings, please come. And whether readers come to meetings or not, please ask your neighbors to come.
And I'm not trying to say that in my opinion, one or another of the Commissioners is better or worse than any other Commissioner. If I did say it, it would only be my opinion. And my opinion is worth no more than your opinion. My opinion is expressed in this blog. If you choose to comment, which you are welcome to do, then your opinion will be expressed here, too. In fact, tell me you want room to express yourself, and I'll give you a guest post. Say whatever you want. On my dime.
Don't believe what I say. Assume I'm wrong. Or lying. Or stupid. Come see for yourselves. These are your elected representatives. You voted for them. Or you didn't successfully vote against them. You pay them. PLEASE COME TO COMMISSION MEETINGS!! Please.
PS: Also, feel free to pass this blog around. Ask people who agree with you, and people who disagree with you, to read it. If I'm wrong, or my thinking is faulty, or someone just sees it another way, I'd like to know about it. And for the record, in the interest of "full disclosure," I get nothing for this blog. There are no advertisers. It makes no difference if two people read this, or 2000 people do. I don't make anything from it, and no benefit accrues to me if someone reads it. I have no way of knowing who, if anyone, reads it, and the "Stats" are unreliable, so I have no way of knowing even how many people read it. Just for the record.
She later told me not only that I was unexpectedly, and somewhat disturbingly, accurate in my description, but that frankly, she wouldn't fully have believed it had she not seen it herself. One word she used was "disgusting," and she particularly cited and indicted "your [our] Mayor." He wasn't on a rampage that day, just doing what he does. She was also very unimpressed with Commissioner Dr Cooper. Or maybe she found him depressing.
But these specific insights and observations are almost beside the point. She had an overarching message for me and for us. Telling it to me was preaching to the choir. I've said it ad nauseum myself. The message to all of us was that it seemed to her essential that Villagers attend these meetings. Even once. Even just for part of a meeting. She felt it was undermining to democracy and to public participation in the governing process for people not to see what they elected.
So I've said it before, and I'll say it again: PLEASE COME TO COMMISSION MEETINGS!!! Most likely, and sadly, the people who are the most likely readers of this blog already come to Commission meetings. So I'm preaching to the choir, too. But if there are any readers of this blog who don't come to Commission meetings, please come. And whether readers come to meetings or not, please ask your neighbors to come.
And I'm not trying to say that in my opinion, one or another of the Commissioners is better or worse than any other Commissioner. If I did say it, it would only be my opinion. And my opinion is worth no more than your opinion. My opinion is expressed in this blog. If you choose to comment, which you are welcome to do, then your opinion will be expressed here, too. In fact, tell me you want room to express yourself, and I'll give you a guest post. Say whatever you want. On my dime.
Don't believe what I say. Assume I'm wrong. Or lying. Or stupid. Come see for yourselves. These are your elected representatives. You voted for them. Or you didn't successfully vote against them. You pay them. PLEASE COME TO COMMISSION MEETINGS!! Please.
PS: Also, feel free to pass this blog around. Ask people who agree with you, and people who disagree with you, to read it. If I'm wrong, or my thinking is faulty, or someone just sees it another way, I'd like to know about it. And for the record, in the interest of "full disclosure," I get nothing for this blog. There are no advertisers. It makes no difference if two people read this, or 2000 people do. I don't make anything from it, and no benefit accrues to me if someone reads it. I have no way of knowing who, if anyone, reads it, and the "Stats" are unreliable, so I have no way of knowing even how many people read it. Just for the record.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Oh, What a Tangled Web We Weave...
I listened again. Commissioner Dr Bryan Cooper has "researched" the matter, and he has learned that the idea of moving the BP election to the general election was actually my idea. He has further reasoned, intuited, or otherwise discovered that I have "brought forward" this idea through Commissioner Ross, whom he characterizes as my "friend."
This train of events and reasonings is beyond tricky. It is closer to death-defying. I must say, I have no idea what activity Commissioner Dr Cooper means when he says he "researched" something. Whatever it is, it has unfortunately led him in a very wrong direction. He might also have some attentional or memory problems. I moved to BP in the summer of 2005. I voted in my first BP election in December of that year. The next general election was the next November. It was some time in that time frame that I came upon the idea that there was something very inefficient going on, and I began to suggest to the Commission that there might be sense in unifying the elections. It would be cheaper, and the turnout would be better. I have made that suggestion to three different Commissions. I began to suggest it not only before Commissioner Ross became a Commissioner, but even before I met her. I never communicated this idea, or any idea, to one or another Commissioner, to the exclusion of the others. I have never communicated any idea for Commission action to Commissioner Ross unless I also communicated it to all the other Commissioners, including Commissioner Dr Cooper. If Commissioner Dr Cooper doesn't read e-mail I send him, I count that as his problem, not mine.
So Commissioner Dr Cooper is grossly wrong to imagine that I have ever promoted any idea through one Commissioner or another. His researches have also somehow failed to inform him that this idea has been mentioned in the Village for many years, long before I moved here. He says the idea was mine, but it simply was not. There isn't much else to say to him about that. He either made a mistake, was careless, or has made up a story. Only he knows which explanation is correct.
What is most curious about his comment is the idea he now exposes, that a non-Commissioner resident of BP, like me, could bring forward an agenda by using a Commissioner. He is describing a situation in which a non-Commissioner resident has great power over Commissioners, and can direct them to do what he wants. It would seem that he treats them like puppets, and they do his bidding. Commissioner Dr Cooper is making a pretty clear statement about Commissioners who are so weak, mindless, and susceptible. Presumably, he is also saying something about such a resident, who we should imagine must be rather dramatically taken with himself and his power, and is essentially predatory in the way he uses other people, including elected officials.
I guess this is what Commissioner Dr Cooper is saying, and what he believes. I can disagree with him about me personally, and he has no way of knowing how independent-minded Commissioner Ross is, and how often she has disagreed with me or declined suggestions of mine, but Commissioner Dr Cooper may know something I don't know. He may be referring to something entirely different. He is wrong to think I have either the inclination or the power to control Commissioners, but I am not in a position to say that no one has such an inclination, or that there are no Commissioners who can be so manipulated. If Commissioner Dr Cooper is trying to tell us something when he makes these assertions, he will have to be a bit more explicit, and more detailed.
This train of events and reasonings is beyond tricky. It is closer to death-defying. I must say, I have no idea what activity Commissioner Dr Cooper means when he says he "researched" something. Whatever it is, it has unfortunately led him in a very wrong direction. He might also have some attentional or memory problems. I moved to BP in the summer of 2005. I voted in my first BP election in December of that year. The next general election was the next November. It was some time in that time frame that I came upon the idea that there was something very inefficient going on, and I began to suggest to the Commission that there might be sense in unifying the elections. It would be cheaper, and the turnout would be better. I have made that suggestion to three different Commissions. I began to suggest it not only before Commissioner Ross became a Commissioner, but even before I met her. I never communicated this idea, or any idea, to one or another Commissioner, to the exclusion of the others. I have never communicated any idea for Commission action to Commissioner Ross unless I also communicated it to all the other Commissioners, including Commissioner Dr Cooper. If Commissioner Dr Cooper doesn't read e-mail I send him, I count that as his problem, not mine.
So Commissioner Dr Cooper is grossly wrong to imagine that I have ever promoted any idea through one Commissioner or another. His researches have also somehow failed to inform him that this idea has been mentioned in the Village for many years, long before I moved here. He says the idea was mine, but it simply was not. There isn't much else to say to him about that. He either made a mistake, was careless, or has made up a story. Only he knows which explanation is correct.
What is most curious about his comment is the idea he now exposes, that a non-Commissioner resident of BP, like me, could bring forward an agenda by using a Commissioner. He is describing a situation in which a non-Commissioner resident has great power over Commissioners, and can direct them to do what he wants. It would seem that he treats them like puppets, and they do his bidding. Commissioner Dr Cooper is making a pretty clear statement about Commissioners who are so weak, mindless, and susceptible. Presumably, he is also saying something about such a resident, who we should imagine must be rather dramatically taken with himself and his power, and is essentially predatory in the way he uses other people, including elected officials.
I guess this is what Commissioner Dr Cooper is saying, and what he believes. I can disagree with him about me personally, and he has no way of knowing how independent-minded Commissioner Ross is, and how often she has disagreed with me or declined suggestions of mine, but Commissioner Dr Cooper may know something I don't know. He may be referring to something entirely different. He is wrong to think I have either the inclination or the power to control Commissioners, but I am not in a position to say that no one has such an inclination, or that there are no Commissioners who can be so manipulated. If Commissioner Dr Cooper is trying to tell us something when he makes these assertions, he will have to be a bit more explicit, and more detailed.
The Republic of Biscayne Park: Jacobstown
Before I begin, I would like to say two things. First, Gaspar Gonzalez approached me to tell me how offensive is my demeanor, how unlikeable I am, and particularly how disrespectful I am in calling Commissioners by their first names. Guilty as charged, to all of it. (Guilty to calling Commissioners by their first names. Some are personal friends, and the rest I simply know. That's what happens in a tiny municipality. Although Gaspar likes to interpret disrespect in my way of addressing people I know, that is his game. But if he's so delicate, I have no need to discomfit him.) So I have resolved to show more respect, and I will from now on refer to Commissioners by their proper titles and names.
Second, I had a friend visiting from out of town this past week. She is aware of my blog, has read it, and I have described our little goings-on to her. I don't miss Commission meetings if I'm in town, and I offered her the chance not to waste her time. She "wouldn't miss it." She concluded after the meeting that the personnel and dynamics were exactly as I have described them, to her surprise. So I'm glad I have not misled or distorted. As for the topic at hand...
In the Commission meeting of May 1, 2012, Noah Jacobs informed us that the Village is not a democracy. It is a Republic. Although it is not clear what distinction he was drawing, his somewhat arresting assertion deserves some scrutiny. Republics are generally understood to be countries, or "States," not States like the 50 United States. There doesn't seem to be much precedent for a State among states being a Republic, and certainly not a municipality within a state. But what is perhaps more at issue is how we think about the leader of a Republic. Although according to my new resolution I should refer to Noah as Mayor Jacobs, his title according to the Charter of the one-time Village of Biscayne Park, it is likely I would be understating his importance, and showing all the disrespect of which Gaspar (Dr Gonzalez) accuses me, if I did not refer to Noah as President Jacobs. So until I hear differently from our Head of State, I will dutifully refer to him as President Jacobs. The alternative is that I challenge President Jacobs and tell him that in my opinion, having read our Charter, I think we are not a Republic. But this in itself might be unbearably disrespectful. Disrespecting President Jacobs can be a dangerous business.
Commissioner Ross knows what happens when President Jacobs doesn't get the respect to which he considers himself due. In the past, when she was Mayor Ross, she felt the future President's wrath. Last month, after he had dethroned her, she felt it again. Both times, she spoke when he didn't want her to, and she failed to provide direct and dutiful answers to his provocative, and even irrelevant, questions. He fumed, he raged, he drowned her out. He mocked her. He tried his best to silence her, only stopping short of having her removed. He is prone to rather ugly temper tantrums.
With others, too, he can be ruthless in his dismissals and suppressions. In my case, he has silenced me on more than one occasion, and was imperious in so doing. For whatever were the President's reasons, he was more tolerant of Chuck Ross, who was permitted to go over time to finish a thought. Others are treated even more cordially, depending, it seems, on the President's mood.
Our President is not schooled in the art of presiding over a meeting of Commissioners. He is frequently tutored by his informal council of Advisors, chief among them the Attorney of the Republic. But these tutorials seem to have about as much impact as what is commonly jokingly said of the satiation-inducing capacity of Chinese food. The President seems never able to retain the idea that a second is needed before discussion can begin, that public comment must precede Commission discussion regarding Ordinances, under what circumstances the vote must be a roll call vote, and that he cannot simply "call the question" whenever he has tired of the prattlings of the Commissioners. Funny enough, though, at one point he decided it was the moment for him to hand the gavel to his right hand aide, Vice Mayor Dr Barbara Watts, and he was practically erupting in suggestions for her as to how to call upon him for his contributions.
The end of the meeting was another demonstration of the President's whims, his personal touches. When his colleagues bored him, he moved yet again to "call the question." The Attorney for the Republic tried, yet again, to tell him that he could not call the question until everyone had spoken. For the listener in the audience, this concept seems almost simple and straightforward. Evidently, there are subtleties and complexities only the President understands. It wasn't at all simple or straightforward to him. In the midst of this discussion, which also involved Commissioner Ross' effort to preserve her chance to finish a discussion, and a thought, it was realized that the 11:00 meeting limit had expired, and the meeting was in fact over. A motion was offered, to extend the meeting 30 minutes, and the President was inclined to accept this motion. The Attorney for the Republic, however, pointed out that the meeting was statutorily over, and no motion could be offered, voted on, or accepted, even by Presidential fiat. Pish, tosh! This is not some small town Mayor we're dealing with. This is the President of a Republic. The President of RBP:J. The meeting was continued for 30 minutes.
Second, I had a friend visiting from out of town this past week. She is aware of my blog, has read it, and I have described our little goings-on to her. I don't miss Commission meetings if I'm in town, and I offered her the chance not to waste her time. She "wouldn't miss it." She concluded after the meeting that the personnel and dynamics were exactly as I have described them, to her surprise. So I'm glad I have not misled or distorted. As for the topic at hand...
In the Commission meeting of May 1, 2012, Noah Jacobs informed us that the Village is not a democracy. It is a Republic. Although it is not clear what distinction he was drawing, his somewhat arresting assertion deserves some scrutiny. Republics are generally understood to be countries, or "States," not States like the 50 United States. There doesn't seem to be much precedent for a State among states being a Republic, and certainly not a municipality within a state. But what is perhaps more at issue is how we think about the leader of a Republic. Although according to my new resolution I should refer to Noah as Mayor Jacobs, his title according to the Charter of the one-time Village of Biscayne Park, it is likely I would be understating his importance, and showing all the disrespect of which Gaspar (Dr Gonzalez) accuses me, if I did not refer to Noah as President Jacobs. So until I hear differently from our Head of State, I will dutifully refer to him as President Jacobs. The alternative is that I challenge President Jacobs and tell him that in my opinion, having read our Charter, I think we are not a Republic. But this in itself might be unbearably disrespectful. Disrespecting President Jacobs can be a dangerous business.
Commissioner Ross knows what happens when President Jacobs doesn't get the respect to which he considers himself due. In the past, when she was Mayor Ross, she felt the future President's wrath. Last month, after he had dethroned her, she felt it again. Both times, she spoke when he didn't want her to, and she failed to provide direct and dutiful answers to his provocative, and even irrelevant, questions. He fumed, he raged, he drowned her out. He mocked her. He tried his best to silence her, only stopping short of having her removed. He is prone to rather ugly temper tantrums.
With others, too, he can be ruthless in his dismissals and suppressions. In my case, he has silenced me on more than one occasion, and was imperious in so doing. For whatever were the President's reasons, he was more tolerant of Chuck Ross, who was permitted to go over time to finish a thought. Others are treated even more cordially, depending, it seems, on the President's mood.
Our President is not schooled in the art of presiding over a meeting of Commissioners. He is frequently tutored by his informal council of Advisors, chief among them the Attorney of the Republic. But these tutorials seem to have about as much impact as what is commonly jokingly said of the satiation-inducing capacity of Chinese food. The President seems never able to retain the idea that a second is needed before discussion can begin, that public comment must precede Commission discussion regarding Ordinances, under what circumstances the vote must be a roll call vote, and that he cannot simply "call the question" whenever he has tired of the prattlings of the Commissioners. Funny enough, though, at one point he decided it was the moment for him to hand the gavel to his right hand aide, Vice Mayor Dr Barbara Watts, and he was practically erupting in suggestions for her as to how to call upon him for his contributions.
The end of the meeting was another demonstration of the President's whims, his personal touches. When his colleagues bored him, he moved yet again to "call the question." The Attorney for the Republic tried, yet again, to tell him that he could not call the question until everyone had spoken. For the listener in the audience, this concept seems almost simple and straightforward. Evidently, there are subtleties and complexities only the President understands. It wasn't at all simple or straightforward to him. In the midst of this discussion, which also involved Commissioner Ross' effort to preserve her chance to finish a discussion, and a thought, it was realized that the 11:00 meeting limit had expired, and the meeting was in fact over. A motion was offered, to extend the meeting 30 minutes, and the President was inclined to accept this motion. The Attorney for the Republic, however, pointed out that the meeting was statutorily over, and no motion could be offered, voted on, or accepted, even by Presidential fiat. Pish, tosh! This is not some small town Mayor we're dealing with. This is the President of a Republic. The President of RBP:J. The meeting was continued for 30 minutes.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
It's a Small World After All
So the question is, when should we hold our elections. Our Charter specifies that we hold them on the first Tuesday of December in odd numbered years. Which we do. It's our special private time with each other. Just us, and our election for our Commissioners. Three of them. When I moved here in 2005, there was one other issue: acceptance of the renewed VBP Charter.
There's another possibility, though. And it gets some play every several years. It's the possibility of piggybacking our little BP election onto the general election, which falls on the first Tuesday of November, in even numbered years. That's when we vote for President, Senator, Federal Congressperson, State legislators, County elections, judges, Ordinances, and various other issues.
So what's the difference? Well, there are three. We pay to register issues on which to vote. We pay it no matter when we vote. But if we vote for BP elections at the time of the general election, we don't pay more than the registration, which covers advertising. If we run our own elections, we also have to pay for the running of the election. This extra cost is about $4500 per year (about $9000 per election, which happens every other year.)
Another difference is turnout. During the general elections, people have voting on their minds, and they come out to vote. Anywhere from about 40-70% do. But when we have our own VBP elections, it seems fewer people are inspired to bother, and we only get about 27-43% turnout. So if we held our elections during the general election, instead of all by their lonesome, we'd get a much better turnout.
Well this was on the agenda for the Commission meeting tonight. Should we move the election, to save money and get a better turnout, or should we leave it as it is. And this is where the third difference comes into it. Some people like our little stand-alone elections. They just like 'em. Some of the Commissioners talked about that. These people seem to like that "small town" feeling. They painted a charming picture, like Norman Rockwell would have, of neighbors out walking, meeting the candidates, walking to the polls, enjoying each others' company. The old time small town charm was downright palpable. Yessir, it surely, surely was. Yup, neighbors acting like neighbors. Why I s'pose you could go on over to your neighbor's house to borrow a cup of sugar, and sit yourself right down there and talk about who's running for Commissioner. You could have a cup of coffee while you're jawin' about it. And that's just how some people feel. Not too many signs, and the candidates themselves, right there in the flesh, dropping by to meet you personally. And just like Barbara Watts pointed out, she could drop on by and introduce herself to you, and not lose the opportunity if she was trying to get that Barack Obama elected. After all, it would complicate matters a good bit if she was to ask you to vote for him, and ask you to vote for her at the same time.
Now you know it just couldn't be quite that simple. There's always a cost, no matter what you do. So the costs are that extra money, and the low turnout. Well Barbara and Noah both had the answer for you on the money end of it. They switched it from a number of dollars for the election to how many dollars per home ($4!!), or what percent of the budget (less than 1!!), to make you feel better about spending it. I don't mean to harp, but these are some of the same people who keep not getting around to giving the Foundation their $20 per year.
So let's say you bite. You figure it's really not that much, especially to keep that old time small town charm. But you still have a problem. How can you rationalize that low turnout? And keep in mind that everyone, and especially the defenders of the old time small town charm, say they want to try for high voter turnout. "100%," according to the signs Steve Bernard likes to post. What I find weird is that he claims, through his signs, that he wants 100% turnout, but he's a proponent of those elections that get uncharacteristically low turnout. I must remember to ask him how to reconcile that next time I see him.
But there is an answer. Barbara Watts hinted at it, and Bryan Cooper called it what it was. Barbara grudgingly agreed to want a democracy, but she said she really wants a "philosopher king." Bryan said he didn't mind at all that few people vote, because that way, we only get the really knowledgable voters. An oligarchy elected by the elites and cognoscenti. Yessir.
I had posed what I thought was a problem, but Barbara and Bryan allowed me to see that it was really the solution. With talk of keeping the elections small scale so that voters wouldn't be confused by the complicated ballot, including President and all that other nonsense, and so that there wouldn't be so many signs on lawns, confusing potential voters, I thought proponents of stand-alone Village elections were basically saying they thought BP residents were, um, intellectually limited, and needed to be protected from so much commotion. And I learned that's exactly what these proponents think, and in fact they would just as soon the dimwits stay home. So we have our quiet little elections, and we don't make enough noise to awaken those who really should just take a nap. We just get our little turnout of voters who know just what to do. Often, funny enough, because someone tells them just what to do.
We're a small town, with a small population, of people many of whom have small intellects. And that's part of our special charm.
Now it wouldn't be a fair telling of the story if I didn't reveal the unexpected twist ending. You figured this was one of those 3-2 against moving the election, didn't you. Roxy Ross had a good deal to say, about democracy and the value of people voting and whatever other pie-in-the-sky philosophies she was going on about, and Noah started getting very uneasy. It appears he didn't like what Roxy was saying, not one bit. So he tried to shut her down. He kind of likes shutting people down, and he got a very good tutorial in the techniques of it from Andre Pierre, the tyrant of North Miami. He decided to practice some of this on Roxy. Except Roxy just wouldn't be stifled. It appears she's not an obedient girl. Like she thinks this isn't the '40s or '50s, and the little lady doesn't just do what the men folk tell 'er to do. Noah began to unhinge. (This is exactly the kind of thing Steve Bernard would kill to get on youtube, if only it wasn't his boy who was getting unhinged.) And you know what he was getting unhinged about? He said responsible people would certainly vote (he didn't for years that he said he lived here), and he didn't like the way Roxy treated him for the past two years. Which is unexplained, since he never had anything to do with her or even ever came to a Commission meeting until about 7-8 months ago. And he definitely poo-pooed the idea that anyone would forget or not notice we were having an election. But Roxy is going on with her remarks, Noah is turning up the rage (much like he did the day he introduced himself to us last summer, sputtering and raging around like he was going to assault someone, mainly Roxy), and poor Barbara is sitting between them, looking like she's afraid she'll catch a stray bullet, or at least get spit on by Noah. Well, when it came time to vote, Barbara actually went the other way. She voted for the proposed Ordinance. I want to think she saw what was wrong with the other theory, but I have to consider that it occurred to her this was perhaps not the company you want to keep.
I'm frankly sure Steve Bernard will have a word with her. Tonight was, after all, only the first reading of this Ordinance, and Barbara will have a chance to straighten out and do what Steve tells her. But I will confess that I considered Barbara the possible lucid free thinker of the three of them. Maybe she is. She's certainly the one with detectable charm.
There's another possibility, though. And it gets some play every several years. It's the possibility of piggybacking our little BP election onto the general election, which falls on the first Tuesday of November, in even numbered years. That's when we vote for President, Senator, Federal Congressperson, State legislators, County elections, judges, Ordinances, and various other issues.
So what's the difference? Well, there are three. We pay to register issues on which to vote. We pay it no matter when we vote. But if we vote for BP elections at the time of the general election, we don't pay more than the registration, which covers advertising. If we run our own elections, we also have to pay for the running of the election. This extra cost is about $4500 per year (about $9000 per election, which happens every other year.)
Another difference is turnout. During the general elections, people have voting on their minds, and they come out to vote. Anywhere from about 40-70% do. But when we have our own VBP elections, it seems fewer people are inspired to bother, and we only get about 27-43% turnout. So if we held our elections during the general election, instead of all by their lonesome, we'd get a much better turnout.
Well this was on the agenda for the Commission meeting tonight. Should we move the election, to save money and get a better turnout, or should we leave it as it is. And this is where the third difference comes into it. Some people like our little stand-alone elections. They just like 'em. Some of the Commissioners talked about that. These people seem to like that "small town" feeling. They painted a charming picture, like Norman Rockwell would have, of neighbors out walking, meeting the candidates, walking to the polls, enjoying each others' company. The old time small town charm was downright palpable. Yessir, it surely, surely was. Yup, neighbors acting like neighbors. Why I s'pose you could go on over to your neighbor's house to borrow a cup of sugar, and sit yourself right down there and talk about who's running for Commissioner. You could have a cup of coffee while you're jawin' about it. And that's just how some people feel. Not too many signs, and the candidates themselves, right there in the flesh, dropping by to meet you personally. And just like Barbara Watts pointed out, she could drop on by and introduce herself to you, and not lose the opportunity if she was trying to get that Barack Obama elected. After all, it would complicate matters a good bit if she was to ask you to vote for him, and ask you to vote for her at the same time.
Now you know it just couldn't be quite that simple. There's always a cost, no matter what you do. So the costs are that extra money, and the low turnout. Well Barbara and Noah both had the answer for you on the money end of it. They switched it from a number of dollars for the election to how many dollars per home ($4!!), or what percent of the budget (less than 1!!), to make you feel better about spending it. I don't mean to harp, but these are some of the same people who keep not getting around to giving the Foundation their $20 per year.
So let's say you bite. You figure it's really not that much, especially to keep that old time small town charm. But you still have a problem. How can you rationalize that low turnout? And keep in mind that everyone, and especially the defenders of the old time small town charm, say they want to try for high voter turnout. "100%," according to the signs Steve Bernard likes to post. What I find weird is that he claims, through his signs, that he wants 100% turnout, but he's a proponent of those elections that get uncharacteristically low turnout. I must remember to ask him how to reconcile that next time I see him.
But there is an answer. Barbara Watts hinted at it, and Bryan Cooper called it what it was. Barbara grudgingly agreed to want a democracy, but she said she really wants a "philosopher king." Bryan said he didn't mind at all that few people vote, because that way, we only get the really knowledgable voters. An oligarchy elected by the elites and cognoscenti. Yessir.
I had posed what I thought was a problem, but Barbara and Bryan allowed me to see that it was really the solution. With talk of keeping the elections small scale so that voters wouldn't be confused by the complicated ballot, including President and all that other nonsense, and so that there wouldn't be so many signs on lawns, confusing potential voters, I thought proponents of stand-alone Village elections were basically saying they thought BP residents were, um, intellectually limited, and needed to be protected from so much commotion. And I learned that's exactly what these proponents think, and in fact they would just as soon the dimwits stay home. So we have our quiet little elections, and we don't make enough noise to awaken those who really should just take a nap. We just get our little turnout of voters who know just what to do. Often, funny enough, because someone tells them just what to do.
We're a small town, with a small population, of people many of whom have small intellects. And that's part of our special charm.
Now it wouldn't be a fair telling of the story if I didn't reveal the unexpected twist ending. You figured this was one of those 3-2 against moving the election, didn't you. Roxy Ross had a good deal to say, about democracy and the value of people voting and whatever other pie-in-the-sky philosophies she was going on about, and Noah started getting very uneasy. It appears he didn't like what Roxy was saying, not one bit. So he tried to shut her down. He kind of likes shutting people down, and he got a very good tutorial in the techniques of it from Andre Pierre, the tyrant of North Miami. He decided to practice some of this on Roxy. Except Roxy just wouldn't be stifled. It appears she's not an obedient girl. Like she thinks this isn't the '40s or '50s, and the little lady doesn't just do what the men folk tell 'er to do. Noah began to unhinge. (This is exactly the kind of thing Steve Bernard would kill to get on youtube, if only it wasn't his boy who was getting unhinged.) And you know what he was getting unhinged about? He said responsible people would certainly vote (he didn't for years that he said he lived here), and he didn't like the way Roxy treated him for the past two years. Which is unexplained, since he never had anything to do with her or even ever came to a Commission meeting until about 7-8 months ago. And he definitely poo-pooed the idea that anyone would forget or not notice we were having an election. But Roxy is going on with her remarks, Noah is turning up the rage (much like he did the day he introduced himself to us last summer, sputtering and raging around like he was going to assault someone, mainly Roxy), and poor Barbara is sitting between them, looking like she's afraid she'll catch a stray bullet, or at least get spit on by Noah. Well, when it came time to vote, Barbara actually went the other way. She voted for the proposed Ordinance. I want to think she saw what was wrong with the other theory, but I have to consider that it occurred to her this was perhaps not the company you want to keep.
I'm frankly sure Steve Bernard will have a word with her. Tonight was, after all, only the first reading of this Ordinance, and Barbara will have a chance to straighten out and do what Steve tells her. But I will confess that I considered Barbara the possible lucid free thinker of the three of them. Maybe she is. She's certainly the one with detectable charm.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Public Ethics, and a Bonus Topic
I got the e-mail blast, but I didn't check the Village website. So I knew Joe Centorino, the head of the County's Ethics Commission, was coming to talk to us about ethical standards and practices, but I didn't know Ana Garcia was formally presenting the update on the Log Cabin. It seems I wasn't the only one whose anticipation was incomplete. The audience included, let's see, well, there was Linda Dillon, then, um, oh yeah, Chuck Ross and Janey Anderson, and, wait a minute now, oh, right, me. So a pretty good crowd.
Mr Centorino has given this talk many times to many groups. He's given it at least twice to us. I was there for both, and this was a quickie refresher, streamlined to only one hour. OK, it took about an hour and three quarters. At the beginning of the Log Cabin presentation, at 8:00, I asked John Hearn if he thought it would take about 15 minutes. He said normally it would, but this was BP, so I should check back with him at 10. So it was something like that.
The ethics presentation was very standard for Centorino and his partner Thompson. I think we've actually all heard it before. So no news, and presumably not much on anyone's mind. Except Bryan Cooper. He seems to have had some concerns about "Sunshine" and "liaisons," as Centorino calls them. Sometimes we use the word conduits. Bryan was very interested in social media. I guess he's a very social guy. And his weren't necessarily simple and elementary questions. In fact, sometimes, they weren't questions at all. He seemed to have wanted to set something up, or put Centorino on notice. Now just as a frame of reference, Joe Centorino is an attorney hired by Dade County to head its Ethics Commission. He's been doing this for many years. Not only will he cite you chapter and verse, but he has quite a catalogue of stories of investigations and prosecutions, and a real finger on the pulse of where the boundaries are, how blurry are some of the lines, and what is required to keep oneself clean. He has a very broad perspecitive in this area. Bryan Cooper, Dr Bryan Cooper, has a PhD in American Studies, and his job is as a librarian at one of the local colleges. Try to form an image of Bryan asking what turns out to be a rhetorical question of Centorino, then explaining to Centorino what the real rights and prerogatives are.
And of course, Bryan does not leave this topic without also checking about just one more little matter. What if the Village Manager...? Have you ever seen a dog sniffing a tree, or a pile of some other dog's excrement? Do you wonder what it is they're trying to detect? Doesn't all dog excrement smell pretty much like all other dog excrement? Is it really important to check that pile, too? If I say "Heads Up" again, will I be harping? Or is this really only about one Bryan Cooper, and whatever special scent he detects in what looks to everyone else like a pile of routine manure?
Then, there was meeting #2. It was the update about our Log Cabin renovation. Ana Garcia and Roxy Ross appealed to the State Legislature, and Daphne Campbell, and got us a public grant of $150K to renovate this historic structure. And it desperately needs it. The plan may be to make the Village Hall into a building we can use for public meetings, as it was once used. It's too small to contain our administrative services as well, at least all of them, so some consideration was given to an alternative site. This is all preliminary and is up for ongoing consideration and reconsideration.
$150K will not cover it. Not even close. So we need more money. Of course there was the usual talk about getting more "grants" from someone other than ourselves, but there was also the idea, floated by Ana, of selling bricks which will be used to pave the front walk. Hospitals, the Arsht Center, and everyone else in the world does it, and why shouldn't we. It's a terrific way to raise money, and most or all of the money will come from us. Which is as it should be. It's our Village, our Village Hall, and we should have personal pride and sense of ownership about it.
I took a slight liberty. I didn't exactly contrive this opportunity. It was placed in my lap by Ana, who mentioned that she was planning to meet with the Foundation, to ask it to join the fund-raising effort for the Log Cabin renovation. So I decided to create a little commercial for our Foundation. "Our," as in belonging to the residents of Biscayne Park. I felt since this was a noticed and recorded meeting, I might as well place the Foundation on record. So I repeated the request for $20 per household per year, the Foundation's efforts to raise money, and what has become a somewhat more difficult-than-expected matter of getting those $20 from everyone I ask. My thought was to have the Commission join the fund-raising, not only by pitching the Foundation the $20 themselves, but by my asking them to send a reminder and some encouragement to their own circulation lists. As it happens, Bob Anderson has already given me $20 for this year. So has Chuck Ross, Roxy's husband. I mentioned both. I took the chance to ask the other three Commissioners for their $20. How those scamps slipped away without donating is beyond me. I wonder if I did something wrong. I mentioned the Foundation. I said Ana had already mentioned it and would be asking the Foundation for help with raising funds. I said it was in the Village's interest. And I addressed the request to the people who might be assumed to have a particularly high level of devotion to the Village.
Mr Centorino has given this talk many times to many groups. He's given it at least twice to us. I was there for both, and this was a quickie refresher, streamlined to only one hour. OK, it took about an hour and three quarters. At the beginning of the Log Cabin presentation, at 8:00, I asked John Hearn if he thought it would take about 15 minutes. He said normally it would, but this was BP, so I should check back with him at 10. So it was something like that.
The ethics presentation was very standard for Centorino and his partner Thompson. I think we've actually all heard it before. So no news, and presumably not much on anyone's mind. Except Bryan Cooper. He seems to have had some concerns about "Sunshine" and "liaisons," as Centorino calls them. Sometimes we use the word conduits. Bryan was very interested in social media. I guess he's a very social guy. And his weren't necessarily simple and elementary questions. In fact, sometimes, they weren't questions at all. He seemed to have wanted to set something up, or put Centorino on notice. Now just as a frame of reference, Joe Centorino is an attorney hired by Dade County to head its Ethics Commission. He's been doing this for many years. Not only will he cite you chapter and verse, but he has quite a catalogue of stories of investigations and prosecutions, and a real finger on the pulse of where the boundaries are, how blurry are some of the lines, and what is required to keep oneself clean. He has a very broad perspecitive in this area. Bryan Cooper, Dr Bryan Cooper, has a PhD in American Studies, and his job is as a librarian at one of the local colleges. Try to form an image of Bryan asking what turns out to be a rhetorical question of Centorino, then explaining to Centorino what the real rights and prerogatives are.
And of course, Bryan does not leave this topic without also checking about just one more little matter. What if the Village Manager...? Have you ever seen a dog sniffing a tree, or a pile of some other dog's excrement? Do you wonder what it is they're trying to detect? Doesn't all dog excrement smell pretty much like all other dog excrement? Is it really important to check that pile, too? If I say "Heads Up" again, will I be harping? Or is this really only about one Bryan Cooper, and whatever special scent he detects in what looks to everyone else like a pile of routine manure?
Then, there was meeting #2. It was the update about our Log Cabin renovation. Ana Garcia and Roxy Ross appealed to the State Legislature, and Daphne Campbell, and got us a public grant of $150K to renovate this historic structure. And it desperately needs it. The plan may be to make the Village Hall into a building we can use for public meetings, as it was once used. It's too small to contain our administrative services as well, at least all of them, so some consideration was given to an alternative site. This is all preliminary and is up for ongoing consideration and reconsideration.
$150K will not cover it. Not even close. So we need more money. Of course there was the usual talk about getting more "grants" from someone other than ourselves, but there was also the idea, floated by Ana, of selling bricks which will be used to pave the front walk. Hospitals, the Arsht Center, and everyone else in the world does it, and why shouldn't we. It's a terrific way to raise money, and most or all of the money will come from us. Which is as it should be. It's our Village, our Village Hall, and we should have personal pride and sense of ownership about it.
I took a slight liberty. I didn't exactly contrive this opportunity. It was placed in my lap by Ana, who mentioned that she was planning to meet with the Foundation, to ask it to join the fund-raising effort for the Log Cabin renovation. So I decided to create a little commercial for our Foundation. "Our," as in belonging to the residents of Biscayne Park. I felt since this was a noticed and recorded meeting, I might as well place the Foundation on record. So I repeated the request for $20 per household per year, the Foundation's efforts to raise money, and what has become a somewhat more difficult-than-expected matter of getting those $20 from everyone I ask. My thought was to have the Commission join the fund-raising, not only by pitching the Foundation the $20 themselves, but by my asking them to send a reminder and some encouragement to their own circulation lists. As it happens, Bob Anderson has already given me $20 for this year. So has Chuck Ross, Roxy's husband. I mentioned both. I took the chance to ask the other three Commissioners for their $20. How those scamps slipped away without donating is beyond me. I wonder if I did something wrong. I mentioned the Foundation. I said Ana had already mentioned it and would be asking the Foundation for help with raising funds. I said it was in the Village's interest. And I addressed the request to the people who might be assumed to have a particularly high level of devotion to the Village.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Staying Out of the Line of Fire, and Not Making Messes
Yesterday afternoon, we had a Crime Watch "meeting." It was a gathering at the corner of 118th Street and 11th Place. About 22 people attended, including our Police Chief, Mitch Glansberg, and two of our Reserve Officers. Not only was the meeting well-attended, but those who were there were interested and had things to say. We talked about a number of crime-related topics. One thing we talked about was how to stay safe, as "crime watchers," and a related topic was guns.
In the news, there have been three very recent stories about guns. One is about the soldier who went on a killing spree in Afghanistan, murdering Afghan civilians. He seems to have "cracked." Another was about a French man who also went on a killing spree, this time against Jews. The last I heard, this morning, he was holed up in his apartment, had killed some policemen as well, and was reportedly still well-armed. It isn't much of a mystery where this is going.
The last very recent story comes from Florida. A man named George Zimmerman, who lives in Sanford, confronted a kid named Trayvon Martin, who was visiting family and was from Miami Gardens, and shot him dead. Although Zimmerman claims "self-defense," or some variation on the theme of protecting his property or turf, it appears quite clear Martin was in no way armed, nor was he in any way threatening or a threat to Zimmerman. Or anyone else. What he had in his hands at the moment he was murdered by Zimmerman was a bag of potato chips and a soft drink.
The easy conclusion to draw is that people + guns = nothing good. And my personal opinion is that that is patently and unassailably true. If you have a gun, get rid of it. Statistics show that the most likely things that will come of your gun ownership are 1) nothing, 2) the gun will be stolen by someone robbing your house, or 3) some innocent person, maybe a kid, will mistakenly be killed or maimed by it. The thing that almost never ever happens is that you will use the gun successfully to protect yourself. But as I say, that's the easy conclusion. And of course, I neglected to mention that a result of your gun ownership might be that you will amuse yourself at a shooting range, but you don't need a gun in your house for that.
What's much harder is what is happening, and will happen, with George Zimmerman. The soldier will be tried and either executed or imprisoned for life. He'll say he has PTSD and a head injury, and maybe he does. The French guy will not get out of the standoff with police alive. But George Zimmerman has a real problem, and he is a real problem.
I feel confident to say that we will never know what Zimmerman is thinking and feeling. We won't know if he feels badly about what happened, and about what he did. Right now, he is very much under the gun, and it will get worse for him, as the whole country, and soon enough the State of Florida, agitate for him to be arrested and arraigned. He will get very caught up trying to defend himself, for real this time, and he will try to convince anyone he can that Martin really was threatening. He'll tell himself and everyone else stories until he, himself, believes them. He has no viable choice. He's a 20-something kid, who seems to think he's some kind of cowboy or vigilante, and he walks around with a concealed pistol, which use he deliberately anticipated and wanted to legitimize by getting a permit for it. This was a disaster waiting to happen, and it happened to Trayvon Martin. It couldn't really have gone any other way. And if this story was about George Zimmerman, it wouldn't much be worth telling. But there are lots of George Zimmermans in the world. And for who knows what reasons (Michael Moore couldn't ultimately explain it in Bowling for Columbine), they seem to be concentrated in this country. George Zimmerman got himself, and Trayvon Martin, into this mess with a certain mindset, and he'll have it throughout. In a sense, he can't get out of this alive either. Part of his mind is undeveloped or paralyzed, and in that way, he is not salvageable. And circumstances are not on his side. Everything happening to him now, and everything that will happen to him, push him further still out on the limb he already occupies. If somehow he should get acquitted, or not indicted, he will tell himself he was right, and everyone agrees with him, and the world is as dangerous a place as he knew it was, and black people are as ill-meaning as he thought. If he is tried and convicted, he will decide the world is a worse place than he thought, that the country is made up of politically correct idiots, and that he has been made a sacrifice by them. Scheming and fighting against black convicts in prison? Um, I think so.
So Mitch Glansberg had a piece of advice for us yesterday. Look around, see what's going on, and take note of anything that doesn't look right to you. If you see something you don't like, or that you're not sure about, call 911. And don't worry, you're doing the right thing. People who are perfectly innocent will be treated very respectfully and wished a good day. Others will be addressed as you would want them addressed. But don't get cocky. Don't be a cowboy or cowgirl. Don't directly confront people or follow them. Take a surreptitious photograph, especially of a license plate, or write down what you see. AND CALL 911!! But leave policing to the police. They know how, they're very good at it, and it's what we pay them for. That's what Mitch says.
In the news, there have been three very recent stories about guns. One is about the soldier who went on a killing spree in Afghanistan, murdering Afghan civilians. He seems to have "cracked." Another was about a French man who also went on a killing spree, this time against Jews. The last I heard, this morning, he was holed up in his apartment, had killed some policemen as well, and was reportedly still well-armed. It isn't much of a mystery where this is going.
The last very recent story comes from Florida. A man named George Zimmerman, who lives in Sanford, confronted a kid named Trayvon Martin, who was visiting family and was from Miami Gardens, and shot him dead. Although Zimmerman claims "self-defense," or some variation on the theme of protecting his property or turf, it appears quite clear Martin was in no way armed, nor was he in any way threatening or a threat to Zimmerman. Or anyone else. What he had in his hands at the moment he was murdered by Zimmerman was a bag of potato chips and a soft drink.
The easy conclusion to draw is that people + guns = nothing good. And my personal opinion is that that is patently and unassailably true. If you have a gun, get rid of it. Statistics show that the most likely things that will come of your gun ownership are 1) nothing, 2) the gun will be stolen by someone robbing your house, or 3) some innocent person, maybe a kid, will mistakenly be killed or maimed by it. The thing that almost never ever happens is that you will use the gun successfully to protect yourself. But as I say, that's the easy conclusion. And of course, I neglected to mention that a result of your gun ownership might be that you will amuse yourself at a shooting range, but you don't need a gun in your house for that.
What's much harder is what is happening, and will happen, with George Zimmerman. The soldier will be tried and either executed or imprisoned for life. He'll say he has PTSD and a head injury, and maybe he does. The French guy will not get out of the standoff with police alive. But George Zimmerman has a real problem, and he is a real problem.
I feel confident to say that we will never know what Zimmerman is thinking and feeling. We won't know if he feels badly about what happened, and about what he did. Right now, he is very much under the gun, and it will get worse for him, as the whole country, and soon enough the State of Florida, agitate for him to be arrested and arraigned. He will get very caught up trying to defend himself, for real this time, and he will try to convince anyone he can that Martin really was threatening. He'll tell himself and everyone else stories until he, himself, believes them. He has no viable choice. He's a 20-something kid, who seems to think he's some kind of cowboy or vigilante, and he walks around with a concealed pistol, which use he deliberately anticipated and wanted to legitimize by getting a permit for it. This was a disaster waiting to happen, and it happened to Trayvon Martin. It couldn't really have gone any other way. And if this story was about George Zimmerman, it wouldn't much be worth telling. But there are lots of George Zimmermans in the world. And for who knows what reasons (Michael Moore couldn't ultimately explain it in Bowling for Columbine), they seem to be concentrated in this country. George Zimmerman got himself, and Trayvon Martin, into this mess with a certain mindset, and he'll have it throughout. In a sense, he can't get out of this alive either. Part of his mind is undeveloped or paralyzed, and in that way, he is not salvageable. And circumstances are not on his side. Everything happening to him now, and everything that will happen to him, push him further still out on the limb he already occupies. If somehow he should get acquitted, or not indicted, he will tell himself he was right, and everyone agrees with him, and the world is as dangerous a place as he knew it was, and black people are as ill-meaning as he thought. If he is tried and convicted, he will decide the world is a worse place than he thought, that the country is made up of politically correct idiots, and that he has been made a sacrifice by them. Scheming and fighting against black convicts in prison? Um, I think so.
So Mitch Glansberg had a piece of advice for us yesterday. Look around, see what's going on, and take note of anything that doesn't look right to you. If you see something you don't like, or that you're not sure about, call 911. And don't worry, you're doing the right thing. People who are perfectly innocent will be treated very respectfully and wished a good day. Others will be addressed as you would want them addressed. But don't get cocky. Don't be a cowboy or cowgirl. Don't directly confront people or follow them. Take a surreptitious photograph, especially of a license plate, or write down what you see. AND CALL 911!! But leave policing to the police. They know how, they're very good at it, and it's what we pay them for. That's what Mitch says.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
So Here's Where I Get Confused.
We have heard, ad nauseum, some complaints from a few of our neighbors. Until recently, those neighbors couldn't do more than complain. But three of them, a majority, are now on the Commission. They can do whatever they want. So what I'm confused about is why they don't simply change what they complained they didn't like.
Let's take a few examples. For two years, we heard nonstop crying about the minutes. And not only crying. This was portrayed as a very serious issue that undermined every concept of good government, deprived "posterity" of a true record, and frankly reflected critical and anti-democratic mischief on the part of those who didn't expand the minutes. Charges of nearly criminal mischief were made. But over the course of the past four months, these champions of openness, transparency, and justice have done nothing to improve the record. Nothing. They didn't even add a few corrections, as the recent minority always claimed it wanted to do.
Also over the past two years, we heard great criticism about the Village newsletter. Charges again, of course, this time of suppression, not only of the Commissioners who no longer had their own individual platforms in the newsletter, but of the public, who could no longer know what their elected officials thought. First Amendment suppression, thought control, take your pick. And again, four months later and not a single mention of the newsletter.
For two years, we were asked to appreciate how the general residents of the Village were ignored. There was an indictment of a brutish and suppressing Commission (at least a dictatorial majority of the Commission; at least a vile and tyrannical Mayor) that suppressed public input. Examples of public input that was ignored included petitions alluded-to by one Commissioner or another, though no such petitions were ever submitted for anyone's examination or the public record, and electronic outreach from residents of the neighborhood, though curiously, this outreach was apparently made only to one Commissioner. When I have thoughts or suggestions for the Commission, I send e-mails to all of the Commissioners. And the Manager, too. I don't really understand the mindset of someone who is alleged to have important input, but who tells it to only one of five Commissioners. Or the mindset of that one Commissioner who evidently doesn't ask the correspondent to send the suggestion to the other Commissioners. But now that the good guys are in the drivers' seats, we find that they, or at least the Mayor, is no more interested in increased public input than he complains his predecessor was. He even admits so! He also doesn't respond to e-mail. The two remaining suppressing brutes do, but the Mayor and one of his pals completely ignore anything I send. The other good guy (gal) will rarely but occasionally write back to say "Thanks," but there's no comment or discussion. And petitions? I hope I had fun putting it together and spending my time walking parts of the neighborhood to get it signed, because there was essentially no acknowledgement, and no action taken.
Two of our past Commissioners (one still there) and the two newcomers expressly take a very dim view of FPL and its intrusions into the neighborhood. What they had to do to confront this was to plan how to replace the Franchise Fee, and how the Village could go into the electric power production business, since these were the foci of complaint. There has been not one shred of action, or even a word of further discussion, about either task.
So I'm at a loss as to how to understand the complaints. Were they just idle complaints about which the plaintiffs didn't really even care? Do they just like to hear themselves whine? Or was it just something to rally around, for the sake of the rally?
Let's take a few examples. For two years, we heard nonstop crying about the minutes. And not only crying. This was portrayed as a very serious issue that undermined every concept of good government, deprived "posterity" of a true record, and frankly reflected critical and anti-democratic mischief on the part of those who didn't expand the minutes. Charges of nearly criminal mischief were made. But over the course of the past four months, these champions of openness, transparency, and justice have done nothing to improve the record. Nothing. They didn't even add a few corrections, as the recent minority always claimed it wanted to do.
Also over the past two years, we heard great criticism about the Village newsletter. Charges again, of course, this time of suppression, not only of the Commissioners who no longer had their own individual platforms in the newsletter, but of the public, who could no longer know what their elected officials thought. First Amendment suppression, thought control, take your pick. And again, four months later and not a single mention of the newsletter.
For two years, we were asked to appreciate how the general residents of the Village were ignored. There was an indictment of a brutish and suppressing Commission (at least a dictatorial majority of the Commission; at least a vile and tyrannical Mayor) that suppressed public input. Examples of public input that was ignored included petitions alluded-to by one Commissioner or another, though no such petitions were ever submitted for anyone's examination or the public record, and electronic outreach from residents of the neighborhood, though curiously, this outreach was apparently made only to one Commissioner. When I have thoughts or suggestions for the Commission, I send e-mails to all of the Commissioners. And the Manager, too. I don't really understand the mindset of someone who is alleged to have important input, but who tells it to only one of five Commissioners. Or the mindset of that one Commissioner who evidently doesn't ask the correspondent to send the suggestion to the other Commissioners. But now that the good guys are in the drivers' seats, we find that they, or at least the Mayor, is no more interested in increased public input than he complains his predecessor was. He even admits so! He also doesn't respond to e-mail. The two remaining suppressing brutes do, but the Mayor and one of his pals completely ignore anything I send. The other good guy (gal) will rarely but occasionally write back to say "Thanks," but there's no comment or discussion. And petitions? I hope I had fun putting it together and spending my time walking parts of the neighborhood to get it signed, because there was essentially no acknowledgement, and no action taken.
Two of our past Commissioners (one still there) and the two newcomers expressly take a very dim view of FPL and its intrusions into the neighborhood. What they had to do to confront this was to plan how to replace the Franchise Fee, and how the Village could go into the electric power production business, since these were the foci of complaint. There has been not one shred of action, or even a word of further discussion, about either task.
So I'm at a loss as to how to understand the complaints. Were they just idle complaints about which the plaintiffs didn't really even care? Do they just like to hear themselves whine? Or was it just something to rally around, for the sake of the rally?
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Addendum about the School Post, and about Another Little Matter.
I hope I can be delicate about this. I probably can't.
A very few months ago, I reported about a little rumor I heard. Part of it had to do with our Manager, and some crosshairs. I got a certain amount of flak for that post.
So at the church/school informational meeting, the topic came up about whether the c/s was supposed to inform the neighborhood about the meeting. They promised they would, and they pretty much didn't. According to what one of them said, they managed to inform maybe a couple hundred of our 3000 residents. I don't know what the method of outreach was, but they didn't inform me. I got notice about it from two of the Commissioners.
At this meeting two days ago, Bryan Cooper made a complaint about the lack of notice of the meeting. The c/s was supposed to inform everyone, but Bryan wasn't complaining that they didn't. He mentioned that only a small segment of the Village was informed by the "blast" e-mails from Commissioners, but he wasn't exactly complaining about that, either. (He, himself, perhaps, did not bother to inform anyone. I certainly didn't get notice from him.)
Nope, Bryan complained that the Village Manager failed to inform everyone. He complained that one of the few people whose job it wasn't to inform the neighborhood didn't inform the neighborhood.
So just remember: Heads Up. I'm just sayin'...
A very few months ago, I reported about a little rumor I heard. Part of it had to do with our Manager, and some crosshairs. I got a certain amount of flak for that post.
So at the church/school informational meeting, the topic came up about whether the c/s was supposed to inform the neighborhood about the meeting. They promised they would, and they pretty much didn't. According to what one of them said, they managed to inform maybe a couple hundred of our 3000 residents. I don't know what the method of outreach was, but they didn't inform me. I got notice about it from two of the Commissioners.
At this meeting two days ago, Bryan Cooper made a complaint about the lack of notice of the meeting. The c/s was supposed to inform everyone, but Bryan wasn't complaining that they didn't. He mentioned that only a small segment of the Village was informed by the "blast" e-mails from Commissioners, but he wasn't exactly complaining about that, either. (He, himself, perhaps, did not bother to inform anyone. I certainly didn't get notice from him.)
Nope, Bryan complained that the Village Manager failed to inform everyone. He complained that one of the few people whose job it wasn't to inform the neighborhood didn't inform the neighborhood.
So just remember: Heads Up. I'm just sayin'...
Saturday, March 10, 2012
OK, I Want the School. (Is That What I'm Supposed to Say?)
Excellent and compelling presentation today from Father Cutie, Rolando Llanes, and Mater President Antonio Roca. They told us all about the proposed school. Or at least as much as they possibly could.
Let's start with history. The Village has been here since 1933. The Church since 1940. It was a time, we're reminded, when a community was built around its church. The Village didn't have the population then that it does now, and it may well be that everyone in town went to church. That church. Our church. The one that was no doubt for "white" people. I don't know if they had those "No Jews" signs then, like they did on Miami Beach, but they might have. But anyway, it was a happy time. And it results in our having our very own and beloved church. It's true that it isn't well attended any more (better since our local celeb Alberto Cutie took the pulpit), and the vast majority of BPers don't go there, but it's still our church.
Let's now jump forward right to today. Or maybe last year. Someone was in a hurry to get a school in there, and the original proposal was nearly on-the-spot. The plan was for a month from our having been informed, so as to ensure proper care in the preparation. (Quickly, children, quickly now!) There was some information our Commission wanted, though, and it asked the church/school to provide it. Those were the old days, when that version of Bryan Cooper was demanding "five-year business plans" and other documentation and precautions the new Bryan Cooper doesn't care about. The c/s never gave us what we wanted, and a proposed workshop was thus cancelled. Somehow, this coincided with a delay from the c/s' end, too, and the matter lay dormant until a couple of months ago. Back came Cutie/Llanes. They're set to go ahead, and are ready to answer questions. The biggest question was who is the target audience, and most specific questions would come from residents: those whose Village would be invaded by a school, and who would perhaps send their children to one. So Cutie/Llanes were to send out a flyer, and we planned an informational meeting. That meeting happened today.
Well-attended? You bet! The room was packed. It would have a bit less packed without some of the ringers and shills. Like the snickering, applauding woman who doesn't live in BP, but goes to the church, and might be planning to move to BP, maybe if we had a school for her kids... Or the guy from Miami Shores who's on the Board of Mater Academy... Father Cutie, demonstrating some of his charm, commented on the new faces. Many of them were new to me, too.
So the watchword of the day was "choice." We don't have enough school choice, so we're told. We have WJ Bryan on 125th St, MS Elementary School less than a mile over the bridge (those are free), St Rose, Miami Country Day, and a Montessori school a few blocks over the bridge, another elementary school about a mile down 103rd Street, another elementary or middle school, Gratigny, on 119th west of us, and a Charter School with a Montessori component on 86th and NE 8th Avenue, so about 2-3 miles away. The last three are free. But we need more. We don't have, for example, a free Charter school for K-5 in walking distance and within Biscayne Park. Something like that would really round out the choice nicely. Until the kids hit 6th grade, at which point we have a crisis on our hands.
But for now, people like choice. The people with the kids did. And we were put on notice by some of those people, too. Like the woman who threatened not to move here if we don't have a school in the church. And John Mayhew, who said people are moving out of BP, because we don't have a proper school for their children. I think John Mayhew needs to talk to Carmen De Bernardi. She says people moved away, because Roxy Ross is a tyrant and a dictator. I thought maybe the economy and foreclosures, but what do I know?
Anyway, we need choice, and we need to establish a K-5 Charter School here to provide that choice. So here's what I'm thinking. If that's what we need, and we don't have enough choice without it, maybe we need more houses of worship, too. One church, and it's Episcopal? What if our people are Catholic, like Chester Morris? Chester has to drive over the bridge and fight that school traffic to go to St Rose. Shouldn't we have a Catholic church here in BP? We don't have any Baptists, or Lutherans, or Methodists? I'm guessing there must be some Jews, now that they're allowed to live here. How about a Temple? Three, I'm thinking, for the Orthodox, the Conservatives, and the Reforms. Oh, wait, the Hasids. Which leaves a glaring neglect of the Muslims, both Sunni and Shia. And shouldn't we disguise them all for the sake of the atheists?
Dizzying, right? In the meantime, we have to decide how big this one school should be. A charter school in BP for how many kids, exactly? Well, they're waiting for us to tell them what we need. What we need? Nothing. This was their idea, not ours. They somehow figured out the K-5 part, so shouldn't they decide how many of us there are? I suggested they should (long ago) have sent a survey to every house, to see who lives there, how long they've lived there, how many kids they have, of what ages, to what kind of school they send them or are planning to, and whether they plan to walk their kids to school (this was a primary consideration in view of the imagined traffic problem, though one speaker calculated that the influx of new kids going to a newly founded school would lessen the traffic). Mr Llanes thought this survey might be one way to find out. Is there some other way? Is there any other way? And why they haven't yet done this thing that was the only way to answer the only real question was unrevealed. So until the c/s does the only thing anyone can do, it's a standoff.
But we did agree about one thing: some people want a school in BP. As it turns out, some people don't want a school in BP, too, so I'm not sure where that leaves us.
We are also encouraged to consider some of the indirect advantages of a K-5 Charter school. Like an increase in property values. This idea was proposed. And it's an interesting idea. Would a school, of any kind, increase property values? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe it would lower property values. I suspect that in reality, no one knows. What about a micro shopping mall, high end stuff, arranged as booths or kiosks around the park? Would that increase property values? Should we look into it? And our own Whole Foods? In discussing the easy and pure advantage of our new school, as the c/s pitched it, I informed them that something as seemingly uncomplicated as replacing a few wood telephone poles with a few concrete ones was the cause of essentially tragic discord here, and that simply popping up a new school for us might not be so inconspicuous or noncontroversial. And "property values" infected the telephone pole matter, too. Some thought harsh-appearing concrete poles would lower property values. Others thought sturdier and longer lasting concrete poles might raise property values. So I think the real answer is a resounding "Who knows?"
But here was my underlying and sustaining thought about the school, and the church. As Father Cutie correctly put it, the church is the only non-residential, non-Village structure in BP. We say BP is purely residential, which it almost is with the exception of the church, our Village Hall, the recreation center/park, and the public works building. So why do we want to compound an error, the error being to contaminate a peculiarly purely residential neighborhood with a church? If a church somehow made sense in about 1940, in a new municipality, it doesn't any more. I told the c/s people my idea: that they should sell off what they can, we would buy them out of the rest, and they can take the show just over the bridge and build whatever church and school they want. They told me to forget it.
So since we're getting the school, whether we like it or want it or not, I think I should allow myself to enter the trance and come to like the idea. By the way, Mr Llanes acknowledged that of course it isn't up to us, and of course the church and the school will decide, but he wanted us to experience it as less of a steamroller job than that. He wanted us all to pretend it was collaborative.
Let's start with history. The Village has been here since 1933. The Church since 1940. It was a time, we're reminded, when a community was built around its church. The Village didn't have the population then that it does now, and it may well be that everyone in town went to church. That church. Our church. The one that was no doubt for "white" people. I don't know if they had those "No Jews" signs then, like they did on Miami Beach, but they might have. But anyway, it was a happy time. And it results in our having our very own and beloved church. It's true that it isn't well attended any more (better since our local celeb Alberto Cutie took the pulpit), and the vast majority of BPers don't go there, but it's still our church.
Let's now jump forward right to today. Or maybe last year. Someone was in a hurry to get a school in there, and the original proposal was nearly on-the-spot. The plan was for a month from our having been informed, so as to ensure proper care in the preparation. (Quickly, children, quickly now!) There was some information our Commission wanted, though, and it asked the church/school to provide it. Those were the old days, when that version of Bryan Cooper was demanding "five-year business plans" and other documentation and precautions the new Bryan Cooper doesn't care about. The c/s never gave us what we wanted, and a proposed workshop was thus cancelled. Somehow, this coincided with a delay from the c/s' end, too, and the matter lay dormant until a couple of months ago. Back came Cutie/Llanes. They're set to go ahead, and are ready to answer questions. The biggest question was who is the target audience, and most specific questions would come from residents: those whose Village would be invaded by a school, and who would perhaps send their children to one. So Cutie/Llanes were to send out a flyer, and we planned an informational meeting. That meeting happened today.
Well-attended? You bet! The room was packed. It would have a bit less packed without some of the ringers and shills. Like the snickering, applauding woman who doesn't live in BP, but goes to the church, and might be planning to move to BP, maybe if we had a school for her kids... Or the guy from Miami Shores who's on the Board of Mater Academy... Father Cutie, demonstrating some of his charm, commented on the new faces. Many of them were new to me, too.
So the watchword of the day was "choice." We don't have enough school choice, so we're told. We have WJ Bryan on 125th St, MS Elementary School less than a mile over the bridge (those are free), St Rose, Miami Country Day, and a Montessori school a few blocks over the bridge, another elementary school about a mile down 103rd Street, another elementary or middle school, Gratigny, on 119th west of us, and a Charter School with a Montessori component on 86th and NE 8th Avenue, so about 2-3 miles away. The last three are free. But we need more. We don't have, for example, a free Charter school for K-5 in walking distance and within Biscayne Park. Something like that would really round out the choice nicely. Until the kids hit 6th grade, at which point we have a crisis on our hands.
But for now, people like choice. The people with the kids did. And we were put on notice by some of those people, too. Like the woman who threatened not to move here if we don't have a school in the church. And John Mayhew, who said people are moving out of BP, because we don't have a proper school for their children. I think John Mayhew needs to talk to Carmen De Bernardi. She says people moved away, because Roxy Ross is a tyrant and a dictator. I thought maybe the economy and foreclosures, but what do I know?
Anyway, we need choice, and we need to establish a K-5 Charter School here to provide that choice. So here's what I'm thinking. If that's what we need, and we don't have enough choice without it, maybe we need more houses of worship, too. One church, and it's Episcopal? What if our people are Catholic, like Chester Morris? Chester has to drive over the bridge and fight that school traffic to go to St Rose. Shouldn't we have a Catholic church here in BP? We don't have any Baptists, or Lutherans, or Methodists? I'm guessing there must be some Jews, now that they're allowed to live here. How about a Temple? Three, I'm thinking, for the Orthodox, the Conservatives, and the Reforms. Oh, wait, the Hasids. Which leaves a glaring neglect of the Muslims, both Sunni and Shia. And shouldn't we disguise them all for the sake of the atheists?
Dizzying, right? In the meantime, we have to decide how big this one school should be. A charter school in BP for how many kids, exactly? Well, they're waiting for us to tell them what we need. What we need? Nothing. This was their idea, not ours. They somehow figured out the K-5 part, so shouldn't they decide how many of us there are? I suggested they should (long ago) have sent a survey to every house, to see who lives there, how long they've lived there, how many kids they have, of what ages, to what kind of school they send them or are planning to, and whether they plan to walk their kids to school (this was a primary consideration in view of the imagined traffic problem, though one speaker calculated that the influx of new kids going to a newly founded school would lessen the traffic). Mr Llanes thought this survey might be one way to find out. Is there some other way? Is there any other way? And why they haven't yet done this thing that was the only way to answer the only real question was unrevealed. So until the c/s does the only thing anyone can do, it's a standoff.
But we did agree about one thing: some people want a school in BP. As it turns out, some people don't want a school in BP, too, so I'm not sure where that leaves us.
We are also encouraged to consider some of the indirect advantages of a K-5 Charter school. Like an increase in property values. This idea was proposed. And it's an interesting idea. Would a school, of any kind, increase property values? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe it would lower property values. I suspect that in reality, no one knows. What about a micro shopping mall, high end stuff, arranged as booths or kiosks around the park? Would that increase property values? Should we look into it? And our own Whole Foods? In discussing the easy and pure advantage of our new school, as the c/s pitched it, I informed them that something as seemingly uncomplicated as replacing a few wood telephone poles with a few concrete ones was the cause of essentially tragic discord here, and that simply popping up a new school for us might not be so inconspicuous or noncontroversial. And "property values" infected the telephone pole matter, too. Some thought harsh-appearing concrete poles would lower property values. Others thought sturdier and longer lasting concrete poles might raise property values. So I think the real answer is a resounding "Who knows?"
But here was my underlying and sustaining thought about the school, and the church. As Father Cutie correctly put it, the church is the only non-residential, non-Village structure in BP. We say BP is purely residential, which it almost is with the exception of the church, our Village Hall, the recreation center/park, and the public works building. So why do we want to compound an error, the error being to contaminate a peculiarly purely residential neighborhood with a church? If a church somehow made sense in about 1940, in a new municipality, it doesn't any more. I told the c/s people my idea: that they should sell off what they can, we would buy them out of the rest, and they can take the show just over the bridge and build whatever church and school they want. They told me to forget it.
So since we're getting the school, whether we like it or want it or not, I think I should allow myself to enter the trance and come to like the idea. By the way, Mr Llanes acknowledged that of course it isn't up to us, and of course the church and the school will decide, but he wanted us to experience it as less of a steamroller job than that. He wanted us all to pretend it was collaborative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)