Just to Be Clear About Our Problematic Finances

 
Just a few years ago, some of us, including me, expressed dire concern about the state of the Village's finances.  The sky was falling, we shouted, and something had to be done.  The issue in play then was annexation, which those of us who were shrieking about Village finances proposed might even be life-saving.

But then, some of us crepe-hangers and gnashers of teeth and tearers of clothes seemed to be spending money like there was no tomorrow.  We decided to renovate the log cabin and build a new Village Hall, and we spared no expense.  Some said we invented completely frivolous expenditures.

How can this be, some wondered?  What gives?  Are we in trouble, really, or are we awash in dough, and misled by some dishonest and manipulative Village residents?

Are we in deep fiscal trouble?  Yes, we are.  We always have been.  We can rearrange the deck chairs here, but we can't prevent the ship from sinking, which it gradually is.  No matter whether we repair the sun shade over the tot lot, or we don't, the streets will continue to erode.  And there's nothing we can do about it.

All streets erode over time, and the only question is whether they get maintained and repaired.  One of the things that erodes streets is prolonged exposure to water.  If an area, like let's say Biscayne Park, has poor drainage, the streets are exposed to immersion in water, and water pressure from below, and this weakens the asphalt/macadam.  Our problem, again, is that we have no way of repairing our streets.  Some residents were even heard to complain recently that the North Miami side of 121st St was resurfaced in the past couple of months, and it makes our side look bad.  Some wondered why North Miami didn't do us the courteous gesture of slapping some new asphalt on our side, too.  Because it costs money to recoat streets, and North Miami has no reason to spend their money to recoat our streets.  And we can't afford to do it ourselves.

That's only the surface treatment.  More destructive are the erosion by water and the invasion from tree roots.  We have no way of attending to these problems.  We also can't afford to improve our medians (at least not from Village coffers), increase and improve lighting, or any of a number of other municipal responsibilities.

Some Village residents who don't want us to spend the money-- or to try to find it to spend-- argue that we don't really have a water/drainage problem.  Considering the pooling that happens after heavy rains, and the obvious deterioration of the streets, this claim is like the knight in Monty Python's "Holy Grail," who suffers amputation in battle, and calls it only a "flesh wound."

So if we have such fiscal trouble, how is it we undertake a major project like the log cabin and the new Village Hall?  Well, the State spotted us over half the money.  And we borrowed about half of the rest.  With those kinds of underwriting and deferred payment assists, we give the appearance of being fiscally competent.  We're not.  What we can do is drain our reserve, and then commit to a manageable $35K per year payment on the loan.

I have very recently had two relevant conversations with our neighbors.  One was about a reserve we had in about 2007 or 2008.  The neighbor recalled that reserve as having been about $500K.  (It was actually about $800K.)  Where, the neighbor wondered, did the money go?  It "went" to two places.  One was that we spent it on the cost of existing as a municipality.  About 80% of our homes are homesteaded, and the ad valorem revenue on homesteaded properties cannot increase by more than 3% per year.  Expenses are in no way limited like that, and they can, and do, increase as much as they want.  We just can't keep up with them.

The other place the money went was that at the end of 2007, and through 2008 and 2009, the economy crashed.  With it went property values.  And when property values decrease, and the assessments on them decrease, the ad valorem property tax decreases.  We took a very big ad valorem hit in those years.

The other conversation I had was about the money we don't have to pay for clean-up after hurricanes.  The resident was concerned what we would do, since we don't seem to be able to afford the clean-up.  The fact is, we don't lay out all the money for hurricane clean-up.  The contractors put us on account, and we pay it over time.  And FEMA reimburses us most of it.  But it was a good enough illustration of a problem.  And the last time we paid for hurricane clean-up, in '05, it cost us about $1.2M.  No normal BP reserve could ever cover that.

We cannot afford our existence.  We pretend we can, or that limitations are due to one mistake, or element of irresponsibility, or another, but we really can't, and they're really not.  We act like the important decisions are whether we should resurface the tot lot, or buy new police cruisers, or pay for an assistant to the Manager, but this is very small stuff.  And we scrutinize the budget and what supports it, and argue about whether we should charge ourselves 9.7 mills, or 9.3 mills, or 10 mills.  But it doesn't matter.  We lose, regardless of which millage we choose.  Millage won't support us here.  We desperately needed annexation, but we screwed up badly, and we didn't get it.  Every time a long homesteaded house sells, and it gets upgraded (at least in terms of the ad valorem tax), it helps us, for a while.  We get a nice infusion for the first few years, but then that property gets the protection that is outstripped by reality.

We are, in no uncertain terms, in trouble.  We can afford the small stuff, and with enough propping up, we can even afford a specific big project, but we cannot afford our real lives.

Harvey Bilt and I. Life, As it Should Be, in Biscayne Park.

Harvey Bilt, and his wife, Vicki, and I have been friends for some years.  I don't remember how we met, but we like each other.

Three years ago, Harvey and I both ran for Commission.  I came in third, and Harvey came in fourth, six votes behind me.  Only the top three vote-getters won seats.  I felt bad for Harvey, whom I like and who I thought would make a good Commissioner, and he was happy for me.  It changed nothing between us.

When I decided at the last minute to run again, Harvey was one of the first to accept a campaign yard sign.  I had a sense that it was his pleasure to show support, and it was certainly my honor to have support from him.

Over the course of these several weeks of the campaign season, Harvey has changed his mind about me as a Commissioner.  I don't know why, since we didn't talk about it, but apparently, he no longer thinks I've been a good Commissioner, or that I would be a good one if I had a second term.  He has said so publicly.

Harvey and I had the following e-mail conversation today:

Harvey,
You accepted from me a campaign yard sign some weeks ago, but more recently, you have made clear publicly that you don't approve of me as a Commissioner.
Can I conclude that the campaign yard sign is not still there (I haven't looked), and I should pick it back up from you?
Fred

Fred,
You are still a friend, and your sign is still displayed.
Harvey

Harvey,
As you say, and I'm glad you say it, you and I are friends.  I'm pleased and proud to have you as a friend.
But the sign is there for a very specific reason, and that reason could exist even if you and I were not friends.  It's there because I'm running for office, and your having that sign there helps me be more public, and it suggests to others that I have your support.  If I don't have your support, you are under no obligation to help me win, and you might have compelling reason not to want to give others the impression that you approve of me.  No one seeing my sign in your yard knows how much you don't approve of me as a Commissioner.
If you still want the sign there, or are simply willing to have it there, we'll leave it there, and thanks for your help.  But it has no negative impact on our friendship, or my respect for you, if you ask me to remove the sign.
Fred

To put it another way, your gesture of friendship to me is your willingness to display my sign, even though you don't think I am or would be a good Commissioner.  My gesture of friendship to you is my offer to remove a sign you probably don't want, and it does not in any way reduce my very friendly feelings for you and Vicki.
Fred

Nope, it stays.
Harvey

Ah, Yes, the Water. The Cold, Cold Water.

Last night was the Meet the Candidates event/grilling in the run-up to our local election.  The event was very successful, the turnout was quite satisfying, and I think all of us made our positions clear.

We were asked a reasonable array of questions about various Village matters.  Everyone got to make his or her case to the audience.

There was a very distinct theme to the responses, more or less as predictable and as promised by the four who are not incumbents.  They all promised to "listen to the residents" (which all candidates promise to do, and all elected officials do), and they all criticized the current state of the Commission and its (in)attention (as the challengers imagine it) to the budget.  One candidate reassured us in response to a question a voter posed to her, to the effect of wondering whether she would take the same positions and approaches as a Commissioner that she does as a candidate, that she could be relied upon not to waver from her current path.  No matter what she encounters, or what she learns, she will not change her mind or her approach.

Those who are not now, and have never been, elected officials seem to understand that somehow, no one before ever thought of the idea of listening to residents/constituents.  And no one ever thought of how to confront a budget, with its limitations.  It never occurred to BP Commissioners to try to manage a manager.  It's an interesting perspective to adopt.  One of my friends who was there described the approaches of these candidates who have never actually had to deal with this kind of material as "pandering and naive."

Frankly, I think that's probably right.  Passing attention, from a great distance away, allowed authoritative conclusions about a range of difficult problems and dilemmas.  And there was largely little or no sense of what made those problems and dilemmas so difficult.

I took the title of this post from a comment made by one of the candidates, regarding the things she imagines herself improving.  Various Village residents have long complained about the water supplied to us from CNM.  Some complain about what they interpret as the purity and cleanliness of the water, and some complain about the pressure.  The candidate in question reassured us she's going to get to the bottom of this, and get those "two and a half inch" pipes replaced and/or enlarged.  As if no one ever thought about this problem, or tried to do anything about it.

If I get re-elected, we will still have two new, uninitiated, clearly poorly informed Commissioners.  If I don't get re-elected, we'll have three.  Presumably, they will start their tenures as they promised: persistently soliciting and "listening to" the thoughts and wishes of their neighbors.  And they'll certainly hear plenty of those thoughts and wishes, whether they still want to or not.  But they won't all be the same thoughts, the same wishes, and the same theories.  They'll conflict with each other.  If our candidates, two or three of whom will become Commissioners, really are pandering, and if their approach really does spring from naivete, they will get a rude awakening, fast.  It will feel like very cold water to them.  They'll find out that just as is true of the current Commission, and the one before that, and the ones before that, they, too, will soon be accused of not "listening" to their neighbors.  They'll find out that simple answers don't really address difficult and sometimes impossible problems.

They'll find out that a very limited-- frankly wholely inadequate-- budget can be tweaked a tiny bit here, and a tiny bit there, but overall, it will never serve the needs of this Village.  We had our best chance to help ourselves-- an early application for annexation-- but we blew it.  One candidate last night talked about maybe annexing some other tract.  But it isn't likely to happen, for exactly the reason our recent attempt failed.

The new Commission will have a choice, as all elected bodies have a choice.  That choice was represented by one of the questions posed to us last night: would you try to respond to what makes Village residents happy, or would you take a different, perhaps longer, view?  As I said last night, keeping the residents du jour happy has for decades involved not spending money on things like necessary attention to the log cabin.  Past Commissions ignored the man behind the curtain, and they oversaw a municipal headquarters that was decreasing functional, and in no way adequate to the need.  The current Commission, the one that ends next month, took the longer view.  And we made some 2015-2016 Village residents unhappy.  Those who choose to be unhappy can remain that way for the next few years, until the loan is repaid.  But many decades and even some generations of future Village residents will be very happy for what we are leaving them.  And in the meantime, we have dramatically improved our functioning, our appearance, and our sense of place.

As one of my friends put it, in a question that was not asked last night, we are improving the Village's "brand."  That translates variously, but most certainly including our sense of value, and our property values.

OK, That's Part of the Answer.

I've wondered what our other Commission choices were all about, and I've now gotten part of an answer.

I'm told that three of them-- Jenny Johnson-Sardella, Tracy Truppman, and Will Tudor-- have been campaigning together, as a slate.  They have told voters that it is their aim to get rid of the David Coviello, Roxy Ross, and Fred Jonas bloc.  They can't get rid of Coviello and Ross, because each has two years remaining on their terms.  But they can get rid of me.

So that's one expressed purpose of their candidacies: displace me.  Good.  Then what?  From what I'm told, no other agenda has been described.  In fact, other than the broad and non-specific complaint about Coviello, Ross, and me, it's not even made clear what that complaint is about.

The candidates' campaign signs might reveal a clue.  Each candidate's sign says something about the "voices" of Village residents.  One of them talks about "cents."  So presumably, the JTT bloc feel Village residents have not been listened to, and perhaps that the Village budget has not been handled correctly.

The question of whether Villagers' voices have been heard and listened to is an old dilemma.  It's a dilemma here, and it is everywhere.  Have Village residents been heard?  Of course they have.  But the opinions of various Village residents, or even groupings of them, have not always been obeyed.  Probably in every case, some Village residents want one thing, and others want something else.  So no matter what Commissioners do or don't do, someone can always complain of not having been heard.  And someone always does.  In recent years, Ross/Anderson/Childress were accused of not having listened to residents, and they were overturned by Cooper/Watts/Jacobs, who were also accused of not having listened to residents.  That bloc was replaced by Coviello/Ross/Jonas, who are identically accused of not listening to residents.  And it's true.  Every vote taken by anyone seems to reflect having "listened to" some residents, and not having "listened to" others.

In reality, no elected official "listens to" every resident, or even particular ones, in the sense of obeying them, all the time.  Apart from the fact that different residents want different things, elected officials are also in a position to have to "listen to" facts and realities that may be different from what various residents want.  Sometimes-- and my case is most certainly exemplary of this-- you learn things you didn't previously know about an issue, and you change your mind.  Not only do you come to think you were wrong to have thought and wanted what you did before, but you come to think your neighbors who wanted the same thing were wrong.

When you're elected to represent a constituency, you no longer have the luxury of simply trying to please and satisfy all of your neighbors, or a group of them, or some of them.  You come to focus on a bigger picture.

Take, for example, the apparent thrust of the new candidate bloc: JTT.  They advertise something about listening to their neighbors, and elevating concern for finances.  Every elected official, and every resident/constituent, is concerned about finances, but let's assume these three mean something specific about it.  Let's assume they are concerned about the money the Village spent for its new Village Hall and log cabin renovation.  I don't know that that's their issue, but I'm guessing it might be.

Decades of BP Commissions took the position that Village residents should save their money, and not make a responsible attempt to address aggregating problems with what was then Village Hall and is now the log cabin.  That posture, which was presumably respectful of what Villagers wanted, or what it was assumed they wanted, left us with a Village Hall that was not adequately workable, in which there was no storage, and that, after attempts to address it, had water leaks from the roof and rats running wild inside.  And a toilet that couldn't be used, because it sat on rotting floor boards.  We saved money, though.  And anyone who didn't want to pay for adequate repairs was "listened to."

And how do you "listen to" residents?  You can always hear the ones who are most vocal.  Do you just listen to them?  If  "listening to" residents means essentially what it says, we can just switch to a town meeting form of government, and have residents at large (or whichever of them care enough to cast a vote) vote on issues to be decided.  We have never chosen to do that, but perhaps it's a worthy idea to consider.  We can then disband the Commission, and get together a few times a year to vote.

The other thing worth noting is concern for the budget.  There are various ways to enact worry about it.  One is to insist that budgets be balanced, so no more is spent than what is taken in.  We already do that.  For special expenses, like the Village Hall/log cabin, we had to borrow.  But we set aside money to pay back the loan, so we still respected the budget.  Within the budget, which doesn't cover everything there is, we can deploy resources in one direction more than in another.  And we do.  And every time we, or any Commission, does that, we increase focus on one thing (to the satisfaction of some, and the disapproval of others) at the expense of another.  Do JTT think the current Commission has gotten its priorities wrong?  They haven't said so.

Or is this one of those issues of deciding the Village (its current Commission) is just spending too much money altogether, and both expenses, and the taxes that support them, should be lower?  Sure, that's an argument.  We can constrict here, and constrict there.  And if we constrict enough, we can lower our overall expenses.  But if we do that, and lower our taxes, too, then we still can't do what we already can't do, and what any self-respecting municipality should do: fix streets, improve medians, increase lighting, and any of a number of other responsibilities.

So apart from railing against CRJ (really just me, since the others aren't going anywhere for two more years), what would the new bloc like to do?  They still haven't said.  Platitudes about listening to residents, and being fiscally sensible, sure.  But what does this look like, in their view?

And what do they propose now?  We have a beautiful new Village Hall and a gorgeously renovated log cabin.  They're all done.  Is the new bloc devoted to preventing any new improvements, because some residents speak against them, and they cost money?  Again, they haven't told us.  And we need to know.  Assuming I'm not persuaded that "For the Best We Can Be" is represented by some of the other candidates, and I don't therefore drop out of the race, I'm still going to get three Commissioners.  I'd vote for myself, of course, but ideally, I'd vote for two more.  I'm getting them, whether I vote for them or not.  So for whom else would I vote?  And how would I know?

The Nature of the Problem

John Ise used to live in BP.  Now, he lives in MSV.  And he's a regular correspondent for the Biscayne Times.  In the October, 2016, number (Volume 14, Issue 8; I can't include the link to the article, because it's not yet on the BT's site), John complains about municipal Codes.  In this case, he's complaining about MSV Codes, but his gripe is applicable anywhere.  He calls his post "Rules and More Rules," and he subtitles it "Let's bring back common sense and compromise."

John presents a few examples of what he and some others consider legislating, or Coding, gone amok.  He paints pictures of MSV residents who appear to be doing nothing about which any sensible and reasonable person would complain, but which are prohibited-- or, as with BP Codes, not specifically permitted-- by the local Codes.  If you read John's complaint, and the complaint of his exemplars, without thinking beyond the examples, you would have the impulse to agree with him.

Why, for example, should vegetable gardens be permitted in MSV back yards, but not front yards?  "No neighbor had complained," John points out about the MSV resident's front yard garden, "and few today comprehend what 'problem' the citation was seeking to resolve."

In another example, a dog groomer with a storefront wanted to move to a larger space in MSV, having occupied the smaller space for 52 years.  The groomer encountered resistance, because apparently, dog grooming is not "explicitly permitted" in MSV.  There was no discussion as to why the business was not challenged for 52 years.  Presumably, it was considered "grandfathered," as long as it didn't change, such as by relocating.

John goes on to say "A stroll through the hundreds of pages of the Village Code of Ordinances shows the excruciating detail given to much of modern life," including limits on how many pets residents can keep.

But then, John says, as if offhandedly, "Of course we need effective and commonly understood code enforcement and rules.  They protect us from pollution, enforce public safety, and provide order...If anyone doubts the need for some level of adherence to code, take a quick drive through some of the dilapidated pockets of unincorporated Dade, including the western border of Miami Shores, where you'll find cars being disassembled on front lawns...and where the occasional snarling pit bull growls as you stroll by."

John adds that "Councilman Mac Glinn cautions me that there's a story behind every layer of the Village Code.  But as in life, Village regulations require a balancing act that ensures mutual respect, personal responsibility, and even a healthy sense of humor."

And that's the problem, presented admirably clearly.  If you don't have Codes, you can't guarantee, or at least impose, order, respect, and personal responsibility.  You need them, when you live in a community with other people, but they're not always natural, springing from what you might like to imagine as an automatic sensitivity between one neighbor and another.  If you do have Codes, you wind up limiting what might, in sensible and sensitive enough hands, have been a development that wasn't bad.  You limit creativity and expression.  You step on toes.  You might dumb things down.

It is, as John says, a balancing act.  And anyone, on either side of any issue, can complain, and feel mistreated.  And they do.  Is one right, and the other wrong?  Are they both right?  Are they both wrong?  Who knows?

The problem is that no one can write Code that covers every possibility and anticipates everything.  The Code-writing pen is not that kind of scalpel.  You do the best you can, either as the Code-writer, or the person responsible for ratifying a proposed Code, and you know that no matter what you do, or don't do, someone will have been adversely affected.  It is absolutely guaranteed by the process.  If there's a better way, no one has told the world what it is.

Who Are These People/Candidates, and What Do They Want?

There are now five people running for Commission, and the election is November 8.  Candidacies were declared no later than August 30.  By the end of the day August 30, six people had declared candidacies, and one has recently dropped out.  Three of the five will be elected.

I said I wouldn't run again.  I said it repeatedly and publicly.  It's a hard job, it's not fun, and it is every bit as thankless as anyone ever said it was.  Unless it's more so.

I had a vision, which was my campaign slogan: "For the Best We Can Be."  It was all I wanted before I was a Commissioner, and I have lived by it ever since.  That vision is what informed every position I took for almost three years.

I knew two of the new candidates reasonably well, and one just a little bit.  I didn't know anything at all about the other two.  The problem for me is that it wasn't clear to me that any of the new candidates shared my vision.  I couldn't be sure any of them represented the "For the Best We Can Be" option.

My feeling is that this option is an important one.  I might even say it's critically important.  On some of the larger issues during this past almost three years, the Commission was split 2:2 without my vote.  You might like the directions we adopted, or you might hate them.  But for me, it was "For The Best We Can Be."  That's what I promised to want, and it's what I think I delivered.

The problem is that I have no idea what the other four candidates want.  I don't know whence they're coming.  To be perfectly frank, if I knew that at least two of the other candidates want what I want, I wouldn't bother to run.  I'd just vote, and campaign, for them.  But I don't know what they want.  As best I can tell, they haven't said.

I'm sure that if asked, each would say he or she wants sensible and sensitive management of the Village, and honest representation of Village residents.  The reason I'm sure of that is that everyone would say that.  Like when you have your medical school interview, and they ask you why you want to be a doctor, and you say "to help people."

One of the candidates recently posted on Nextdoor, and his post was all about himself as a person.  It said nothing about his ambition as a Commissioner, or where he would like to see the Village go.  Chuck Ross and I were talking to another of them a week or so ago, while the three of us were standing around someplace.  Chuck asked him for his opinion about the budget.  The candidate said he would examine it, if it was presented to him, and formulate a response then.  But that's true of all Commissioners.  It says nothing about the approach, or the direction, or the vision, of the prospective Commissioner.

I think there are Commissioners like me.  Two of my Commission colleagues now are like that.  But we have also had Commissioners whose agenda was that they try to represent Village residents who feel victimized by the Village, or by the Manager, or by the Commission.  We've had Commissioners from the "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it any more" school of general discontent and rabble-rousing.  We have had Commissioners whose agenda is that they think our tax rate is too high, and all they want is lower taxes.  We've had Commissioners who resent government, and they want less of it.  We've had Commissioners who were really all about themselves, and they didn't really want anything.  There's no way to tell whence someone is coming-- and we're all coming from somewhere-- unless he or she says.

So I wish the other candidates would tell us what they want.  If they want what I want, they can have my seat.

I Changed My Mind, Because I Haven't Changed My Mind.

My interest in the Village, which is my home, is that it be "the Best [it] Can Be."  I have always strived for that.  I have done what I could to contribute to that interest before it ever occurred to me to try to be a Commissioner.  I moved here in the middle of 2005, and I have been on one Board or another, continuously, since Kelly Mallette first appointed me.  My motto when I ran for Commission was "For the Best We Can Be," and I have a sign that says so in front of me at all Commission meetings.  I participate in everything, and I contribute to everything.

"For the Best We Can Be" is what I believe in, it's what I pursue, and I have not changed my mind about it.  Whether it was solid waste management here, the Codes, annexation, or our new construction and renovation, my guiding principle was whatever I thought was best for the Village, our Village, our home.  I won't claim always to have been right, and I certainly didn't always win, but I will claim always to have had the best interests of the Village centrally and fundamentally at heart.

I've been on the Commission for over 2 1/2 years.  It's a difficult task and a big responsibility.  There are impossible balancing challenges, like balancing what some Village residents want against what other Village residents want, or what some want against what I conclude is best for the Village overall.  There are also people who want nothing, so they can always complain and criticize, no matter what is done or not done, or people who give themselves the job of complaining, without accepting real responsibility.   Their version of responsibility is telling Commissioners what to do, but if what they want done is wrong, it is not they who are held accountable.

In addition, I have drawbacks when it comes to elected office.  I'm not very tolerant of what I consider unreasonableness.  Or obstruction.  Or people whose main interest is themselves.  I tend not to be very diplomatic.

So I decided that after one short term as a Commissioner, I had had enough.  And frankly, I suspected a number of my neighbors, based on their outwardly expressed reactions to me, had had enough of me, too.

I wouldn't call my time in office a failure.  In a number of ways, I would even say it was a great success.   The first huge trouble to which I contributed was the decision to outsource sanitation.  I had previously said I was opposed, but once I had a better chance to learn more about our "in house" management of this function, and what the outsource advantages would be, I changed my mind.  The worst anyone could ultimately say-- worse, for example, than saying the contractor we chose was worse than some other contractor-- is that we might come to feel that as problematic as running our own program is, it's better than outsourcing.  And if someone ever really did come to feel that way, it would be a confident conclusion, because we actually tried outsourcing.

The other big trouble to which I contributed was the culmination of some years of trying to get funding support to renovate our log cabin, and construct a proper Village Hall for our actual administrative functioning.  I claim no credit at all for the hard work that was done to get all that to happen.  It was all Roxy Ross, David Coviello, Ana Garcia, and Heidi Siegel.  And the fact that Rick Scott was suddenly willing to release a lot of State money, which he figured he could use to buy himself a few votes down in Biscayne Park.  But I agreed with every step along the way.  Well, I didn't exactly fully agree.  I wanted to save money on various angles of the project.  But I got outvoted by my Commission colleagues, and I'm really not complaining much.  The results are spectacular, and they will gracefully and wonderfully serve and represent the Village for very many decades to come.

And this is important to me, since I'm a fierce advocate for the life and well-being of the Village.  That goal, like "For the Best We Can Be," doesn't change.  Whether it's good Codes, good fixtures, or good neighbors, if it's good for the Village, I want it.  If I think public art is good for communities, and especially for the Village, I'm behind it.  MLK Days of Service?  Without question.  And if the Village's fiscal foundation is weak, I want it strengthened.  If we need more money, so we can serve ourselves properly, then I think we should raise our taxes.  If we can't or won't do that, then I think we should broaden our revenue base, and do what almost every other municipality in the country does: have a commercial component.  My time on the Commission included all of those kinds of efforts.  I/we didn't always win, but I'm proud of the effort.  It came from the right place.

I decided not to try to spend more time on the Commission.  It can be torturous, and I might not have the right temperament.  So I figured I'd leave it to someone else.  I said so repeatedly.  And publicly.

On August 15, anyone interested could declare candidacy.  One person did.  By August 25, two people had declared.  (There are three seats coming available.)  It wasn't until the end of the day on August 26 that a third person declared.  And the last day to declare is today, August 30.  Today, two more Village residents declared their candidacies.  Unless there's something someone hasn't told me, it appears none of the three incumbents is running for re-election.  One of them told us publicly five years ago, at the start of her term, that she never really wanted to run anyway, and the only reason she did run was that her then (maybe still) mentor ordered her to run, if she couldn't find someone to run in her place.  At least one of the new candidates (maybe two of them) appear to be her stand-ins.  Another new candidate this year ran three years ago, but she had to withdraw, because of serious illness in her family.  Now, she's back.  It's the first time for the other two, one of whom might or might not have lived here for a year, which is the requirement.

In the most superficial way, this solves our problem.  At least numerically.  We have three open seats, and five candidates.  That leaves us with a full Commission.  But for me, there is still a problem.  In view of the fact that my vision for the Village hasn't changed, I do concern myself with whether the prospective new Commissioners best represent the satisfaction of that vision.  And I have to say, it's not completely clear to me that all of them, or at least three of them, do.

So since I haven't changed my mind about the Village, and "The Best It Can Be," then I have to change my mind about not running.  See you at the polls.

Yes On 4, No On 1.

In recent weeks, there has been a campaign to encourage voters to vote Yes on Amendment 4 on the August 30th ballot.  Some of the advocates of the "yeson4" campaign also urge voters to vote No on Amendment 1 on the November 8th ballot.  Both questions have to do with solar power.  Setting aside that there's something weird about making either of these an Amendment to the State Constitution...

The August 30th question is straightforward.  It asks voters whether they think solar panels installed on private homes should be exempted from homeowners' paying a valuation or property tax on those panels.  The idea is that extra taxes on home solar panels would inhibit homeowners from installing them, but since moving to renewable sources of energy (like solar) is considered a good thing, then we should avoid impediments to it.  It's hard to imagine any homeowner voting No on this question.  Why would they?  If they want solar panels, the exemption will help them.  If they don't want them, the exemption won't hurt them.

The other question, Amendment 1 on the November general election ballot, is trickier.  It has a few components. Here it is:

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Electricity consumers have the right to own or lease solar equipment installed on their property to generate electricity for their own use.

(b) RETENTION OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ABILITIES. State and local governments shall retain their abilities to protect consumer rights and public health, safety and welfare, and to ensure that consumers who do not choose to install solar are not required to subsidize the costs of backup power and electric grid access to those who do.

(c) DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this section, the following words and terms shall have the following meanings:
(1) "consumer" means any end user of electricity regardless of the source of that electricity.
(2) "solar equipment," "solar electrical generating equipment" and "solar" are used interchangeably and mean photovoltaic panels and any other device or system that converts sunlight into electricity.
(3) "backup power" means electricity from an electric utility, made available to solar electricity consumers for their use when their solar electricity generation is insufficient or unavailable, such as at night, during periods of low solar electricity generation or when their solar equipment otherwise is not functioning.
(4) "lease," when used in the context of a consumer paying the owner of solar electrical generating equipment for the right to use such equipment, means an agreement under which the consumer pays the equipment owner/lessor a stream of periodic payments for the use of such equipment, which payments do not vary in amount based on the amount of electricity produced by the equipment and used by the consumer/lessee.
(5) "electric grid" means the interconnected electrical network, consisting of power plants and other generating facilities, transformers, transmission lines, distribution lines and related facilities, that makes electricity available to consumers throughout Florida.
(6) "electric utility" means any municipal electric utility, investor-owned electric utility, or rural electric cooperative which owns, maintains, or operates an electric generation, transmission, or distribution system within the state.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE. This section shall be effective immediately upon voter approval of this amendment.

So first, the Amendment offers Florida residents the right to have solar panels on their homes.  But at some level, this doesn't make sense, since Florida residents already have the right to have solar panels on their homes, and there is no public safety or other reason to abridge that right.  So it would be fair to wonder what is the implication of confirming for Florida homeowners a right they already have.  And there is an implication.  In fact, there are three of them.  First, the casual and superficial reader will read that the State, by an Amendment to its Constitution, is guaranteeing Florida residents a right to have solar panels on their homes.  A guarantee like that seems like a wonderful thing, and some voters might automatically seize it.  You're guaranteeing me I can own solar panels?  Done!  "Yes" on Amendment 1.  Second, and related, is that such an offer, and a guarantee, can be such a relief, that no one would bother to read the rest of the Amendment/legalese.  It's a sucker punch.  It's the carrot.  It's like offering someone rohypnol, telling them it'll make them feel great.  Which it might well.  (But aside from that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?)  And it's a version of the "are you still beating your wife" question.  Because finally, if anyone gave it a bit more thought, they might suspect that voting "No" could mean, no, I don't want the State to guarantee me that I can have solar panels on my house.  But who wouldn't want that guarantee?  And if I don't seize the guarantee, does it mean the State could or will prevent me from having solar panels on my house?  So it seems best to vote yes.  (Who, then, are these "No on 1" people, and what are they, {or the rest of us?}, missing?)

The Amendment then goes on to reassure Florida residents who do not have solar panels that the presence of solar panels on their neighbors' homes will not adversely impact the cost of electricity to them.  People who don't have solar panels will not "subsidize" the cost of electricity of people who do have panels.  Of course, voters might reasonably wonder how the presence of solar panels on one home could affect the cost of electricity delivered to someone else's home.  FPL, or any other electric company, creates electric power.  It delivers it to everyone's home.  You use as little or as much as you like, and you pay for what you use.  If you use less, because you're efficient, or because you have solar panels on your home, what's that got to do with me?

Well, Amendment 1 in November contemplates that question, and it has what seems to be a very twisted way of reasoning it out.  It begins, fairly enough, by noting that electric companies have to produce electricity all the time.  If everyone had solar panels, and those panels worked so well that no one had to buy power from the electric company when the panels were absorbing sunlight and converting it to electric power, the electric companies would still have to have the capacity to produce electric power.  At night and on less than sunny days, they would have to provide all the power (assuming Elon Musk didn't also sell everyone batteries to store the power they didn't use during the sunny days) for all those homes.  So the electric companies argue that since they have to maintain capacity, that they might not be fully using, because of the people who don't need to buy power from them at a given moment, because they have solar panels, then those people should pay them a premium to maintain that capacity.  As I said, it's a bit of a flaky argument, but it could in theory have a reasonable logic to it.

It helps many kinds of business to know they have a reliable clientele.  And they will reward people who promise to be a reliable clientele.  If you commit to one business or another, you can get concessions, or a discount.  Or, if you commit to a level of usage, you can get a better per unit rate.  The electric producers in Florida could be invoking that kind of theory.  They could be saying that unreliable customers, like people who generate their own solar power, much of the time, or some of the time, but have to be accommodated when they need to buy from the grid, should pay a higher per unit price.  And that's not a wrong theory.  The only question is whether that's really the theory of the electric production companies.  If it is, then they would offer cheaper power to higher, more consistent users.  They don't.  Or, as with the mobile phone industry, they would allow you a flat rate, and you can use as much power as you like, as long as you commit to a payment level.  They don't do that, either.  So it seems that's not really their theory.

In Nevada, the local electric power producer got the State to agree to what our State, and we, are asked to agree to.  They used the same "reserve capacity" theory, and they slapped a monthly surcharge onto the electric bills of people who had solar panels.  That surcharge was so high that the solar panel industry collapsed in Nevada.  Very few Nevadans are willing to pay that much, just to tell themselves they're doing the right thing by having a renewable source of electricity.  That appears to be the intention of Amendment 1 on the November ballot here.  The electric power production industry wants a captive clientele, and they want us to buy all our power from them.  The funny thing is that although most commercial electricity production in this State now comes from burning stuff (fossil fuels), the commercial producers are not limited to that source of electric power.  They can rely on solar panels, too.  Or wind.  And when the fossil sources of fuel are gone, they will.  They don't mind if we use and pay for electric power sourced sustainably.  They just want us to buy it from them.

There was a time that Americans got around, even in "town," by riding horses.  The automobile industry displaced the horse industry.  That's the way it went, and that's the way it goes.  I recently saw copies of Time magazine and the Miami Herald.  They're shadows of their previous selves.  It's all online now.  Brick and mortal stores are going out of business, replaced by internet shopping.  No one has a home encyclopedia any more.  Everyone has the internet and computer or smart phone.  And it's not that there are no more horses, or print publications, or stores, or books.  There's just a lot less reliance on them.  Would those industries like to blame and punish someone for the fact that progress moved the world in a different direction?  I understand that.  But it's just not how it works.

So I agree.  Yes on 4 in August, and No on 1 in November.

PS: It's not that FPL hasn't been adequately good to Floridians.  They've done what anyone could have wanted them to do, at a fair price, and they've been overseen by the State's Public Service Commission, to control them in ways public utilities must be controlled.  They're a private corporation, out to benefit themselves, too, and I don't fault them for that.  It's business-- their business-- and it's reality.  The "problem" is that there is now a competing reality, and it doesn't favor FPL.  It's the increasing availability and perfection of ways private individuals can actually create their own electric power, and allow them no longer to need a third party producer as they did before.  It threatens the electric company's business.  What is unique here and now is that the same people who might appear to want to thumb their noses at the electric company, by creating their own electricity, also need the electric company, when they can't create electricity on their own.  If the electric company complains they're being used by the public, they're not wrong.  A book about personality disorder is called I Hate You Don't Leave Me, and a book about adolescents is called Get Out of My Life, But First, Could You Drive Me and Cheryl to the Mall?  It's like that.  And I wouldn't even argue that the theory of charging a premium to less reliable customers is wrong.  The theory of charging extra to less committed customers, who maintain the need for reserve capacity for which they will often not pay, is a fair theory.  But charging them an exorbitant and essentially punitive and inhibiting premium is not a fair exercise of the theory.  Having to pay interest to borrow money is fair.  Usury is not.

Every place I go to attend cultural events will charge me more per event, if I go to select concerts or shows, instead of subscribing to the whole series or season.  Because that event will occur, whether I'm there or not.  And if I'm the patron who might or might not be there, and might or might not support the company by paying for a ticket, then I will pay more when I do.  The per issue price for a random copy of a magazine or newspaper is far higher than the per issue price paid by subscribers.  Because the magazine or newspaper will be produced, and will be at the newsstand, whether occasional readers buy that issue or not.  There will always be "reserve capacity."  And if the per issue, or per concert, price is too high, people will either be forced to subscribe, or they'll shrug their shoulders and not buy.  The difference with public utilities is that the public must have the availability.  It's not discretionary, as attending a concert, or buying a magazine, is discretionary.  The utility is in the unenviable position of having to tolerate, and maybe even enable, evolution that undermines its business.  I have never been a proponent of making cigarette companies advertise what's wrong with their product.  It's not fair to them to make them work against themselves.  If cigarettes are bad and dangerous, we should outlaw them.  If we don't do that, it's on us.  The utility is different.  We have no beef with what they provide.  We need it, and we want it.  We just want to compete with them, and we don't want them to complain about it.  We say we want them out of our lives, but we want them waiting outside, in an air-conditioned car, with our favorite music playing on the radio, in case we suddenly feel a need to be driven to the mall.  And since they're our mommies and daddies, we don't want to have to compensate them for the ride.  If I had, or come to have, solar panels, I would understand a higher per kWh charge for the power I irregularly use.   Just not artificially high, and high enough to undermine my "independence."

Yes on 4 in August, No on 1 in November.

FREE BULLY PREVENTION WORKSHOP

 

With school starting up this month and having to meet new teachers, spending a bunch of money on school supplies, new clothes, new shoes and the occasional “I don’t want to go to school” you will have to deal with a fresh new batch of bullies.

 

Bullying is all too real. Did you know that 25% of public schools report that bullying among kids happens on a daily or weekly basis? And that 1 in 5 high school students report being bullied in the past year?

The good news is that because bullying has made national headlines, schools and communities (and even celebrities) are taking a strong stand against bullying.

 

Bullies thrive on hurting others. A child who isn't easily ruffled has a better chance of staying off a bully's radar. So don't try to fight the battle yourself. Sometimes talking to a bully's parents can be constructive, but it's generally best to do so in a setting where a school official, such as a counselor, can mediate.

 

For real confidence and safety an ongoing self-defense program is a choice of many parents. Although it may be easiest for parents to tell kids to ignore the bully, walk away or tell a teacher, that is not always the safest, easiest thing for a child to do.  Kids don't want to be in fear of school or other kids.  Parents want to make sure their kids are safe.  This is often a have/need choice.  Kids and parents would rather have their kids know self-defense skills and not need to use then than to not have the skills and someday need them.

 

Because of this we are offering our annual “Bully Prevention Workshop” on Saturday, September 3rd, 2016 at 10am at our martial arts school.

This “Bullyproofing” workshop covers the following.

• What is bullying to a child
• What you can expect from bullies
• What can you do to help your child
• How your child can help themselves and each other

This workshop is completely FREE and there are no catches. But if you really want your child to not only be “Bullyproof” but also be “self-confident” a special offer will be made to at the end of the workshop.

If this sounds like something you would be interested please go to our workshops page and click on the "CLICK TO REGISTER" button or simply call us at 305-542-5549 to save your spot.

Until next time be safe.

Instructor Joe Chao

 

Interesting from Delanceyplace.com. Right Up Our Street. Depression Era, Suburban.

Delanceyplace is free and comes to e-mail Monday through Friday.  The posts are often very interesting.  They are excerpts from books, and are on a wide variety of topics.

Today's selection from -- Debtor Nation by Louis Hyman. To help bolster mortgage lending during the Great Depression, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was created, and the FHA in turn created the twenty year mortgage. But no one had made a mortgage loan for anywhere close to as long as twenty years before, and lenders were worried that the houses would not hold their value over twenty years. So the FHA created standards and guidelines to help insure that they did. But in so doing, it clearly showed a bias against urban areas, inaugurating an almost eighty year period in which the trends in housing was toward suburbs -- and away from urban areas. This trend has only recently reversed: "The purpose of the FHA was to create demand for building materials and for labor. To get money moving again in the economy, the FHA guidelines helped buyers and lenders alike differentiate between a good house and a bad house. Too many home buyers had been burned by shoddy construc­tion in the 1920s. Enacting national standards allowed investors to loan money at a distance, and allowed mortgages to be resold. Housing qual­ity was the foundation upon which the entire FHA system resided. "In determining 'good' housing, however, FHA guidelines went well beyond the proper ratio of nails to wood in addressing what had long been contentious politically and racially. ... The FHAUnderwriting Manual instructed lenders on which properties could be insured. ... Through its many pages of charts, tables, and descriptions, the manual instructed banks on where to lend and on whom to lend money to. While the man­ual promised objectivity, the social assumptions of the FHA planners shaped the planning criteria as much as macroeconomic considerations. ... "These standards were not only for how they were physically constructed, but also where they were located, which few ex­tant homes could meet. ... The ideal house lot possessed 'sunshine, ventilation, scenic outlook, pri­vacy, and safety.' 'Effective landscaping and gardening' also added to its worth. Needless to say, downtown districts, especially in the East, rarely possessed all these qualities and 'depart[ure] from the conditions [caused] ratings [to] become progressively lower.' Homogeneity of surrounding housing stock -- houses that all looked alike -- was believed to indicate stable housing prices. To get the maximum score on the mortgage evalu­ation, the manual mandated that a house be a part of a 'sparsely devel­oped new neighborhood . . . completed over the span of a very few years.' Without this homogeneity, 'an undesirable age mixture of structures will result.' Between the types of lots and the need for simi­lar building age, the suburban subdivision easily received a designation as a 'better mortgage-lending area.' Urban neighborhoods found it nearly impossible to receive such a designation. ... "Multiuse districts with 'commercial, industrial, or manufacturing enterprise,' threatened resi­dential value. A declining population threatened a surplus of sales, which would decrease value. Most alarming was the mixture of classes or races in a neighborhood or the potential therefore. The 'adverse influences' category of the mortgage application, which was 20 percent of its total rating, was mostly concerned with the danger of class and racial mixing. Ideal neighborhood schools ought not to have 'a goodly number of the pupils represent a far lower level of society or an incompatible racial ele­ment.' A good neighborhood also included 'prevention of the infiltra­tion of business and industrial uses, lower-class occupancy, and inharmo­nious racial groups.' ... "Considered from the point of view of a mortgage lender, the FHA be­lieved the city was not a good investment, making suburban lending risk­ free and thus, urban lending, bad business. Very explicitly, the 'central downtown core' was 'considered ineligible.' "  SHARE DELANCEYPLACE SHARE        Debtor Nation: The History of America in Red Ink  Author: Louis Hyman Publisher: Princeton University Press Copyright 2011 by Princeton University Press Pages: 63-66 If you wish to read further: Buy Now All delanceyplace profits are donated to charity and support children's literacy projects. About Us Delanceyplace.com is a brief daily email with an excerpt or quote we view as interesting or noteworthy, offered with commentary to provide context. There is no theme, except that most excerpts will come from a non-fiction work, mainly works of history, are occasionally controversial, and we hope will have a more universal relevance than simply the subject of the book from which they came. to go to our homepage - click here to go to our archives - click here to subscribe - click here