Perspective and Focus, Dan Keys. It's the Medians.

Dan Keys and I have had this conversation many times.  Some of those times have been private, and some have been public, either in public meetings, on Nextdoor Biscayne Park, and even in comments to posts in this blog.  Dan remains intransigent on the matter, and he generally manages to find me, and the topic, more or less comfortable to dismiss.  So I thought maybe a more formal and stand-alone airing here might be deserved by the topic, and it might stimulate more thinking and even expression of opinion.

It should also be noted that one of Dan's complaints about management of this issue is that individual Village residents (I think of Harvey Bilt, Chester Morris, and whoever put the pandanus in the median at 10th Avenue and 115th  Street) sometimes get frustrated and simply take it upon themselves to make improvements.  Dan objects to acts like these.  But it seems he leaves Village residents who care about the medians, and their own properties, no other choice.

Dan will say in his defense that he doesn't act alone.  This is partially true.  He sometimes relies on some form of consensus from the Parks and Parkways Board, of which he is the Chair.  But he has managed this Board in a very particular way, trying (generally successfully) over time to extrude members he can't control. At other times, he simply does an end around the whole concept of the Board, and he "makes himself available" to be asked, such as by one or another Manager, to make a plan, which he does on his own.

Oddly enough, although Dan seems averse to having the input of other people in creating landscape designs, he has enjoyed success in getting many of us to help him with the actual installation of plants.  I wonder if this seems as much a one way street to Dan as it does to those of us who are happy to help, but feel shut out of the planning process.


Dan,

For some years now, you and I have been having an endless argument.  It's been endless because you won't do what I ask, and I won't stop asking.  The issue is the Village's medians, which I consider inadequately developed (and therefore not the aesthetic and functional features I think they should be).  You, on the other hand, have responded by identifying a variety of reasons the medians could not or should not be better developed.  Your reasons include things like cost, maintenance, selection of materials, and some more loosely related concerns.  But, as what I believe is an important, and possibly critically important, frame of reference, I don't believe you ever said we should not further develop the medians-- further than they are-- because you think they look very nice already, or as nice as they could or should look.  I have never been given reason to think you believe that, and I have never heard anyone else say they thought it, either.

I want to put you in mind of a few ways of looking at this matter, Dan.  About two years ago, you sent to all of the then Commissioners an e-mail.  You had gotten it from somewhere, and for whatever reason, you thought the Village, through its Commission, should be aware of it.  The e-mail was an educational one-- of sorts-- and it had to do with pruning trees.  If I remember correctly, it described five mistakes that should not be made in how trees are pruned and maintained.  As it turns out, Dan, I happened to be particularly interested in this e-mail from you.  At least, I was at the outset.  The fact is, I'm not an arborist, I've heard it makes a difference how trees are pruned, and it just so happened I actually wanted to know what was the proper approach to this task.  But I never found out.  All I learned, having read carefully what you sent, was how not to prune a tree.  Given a tree, and a chainsaw, I still didn't know what to do.  And I don't today.  Dan, you do versions of this a lot.  And every time you do it, in every setting in which you do it, it is as useless, and frustrating, as it was the day I didn't learn how properly to prune a tree.

Do you know the joke line, "the operation was a success, and the patient died?"  Consider all the reasons you always give as to why and where caution has to be taken, and caveats applied, to the project of median development and maintenance.  Being respectful of all those caveats is the operation.  Now, go look at the medians.  That's the patient.  You've been very, very careful, Dan.  You have cautioned the Village to avoid many traps and pitfalls.  You've urged us to save ourselves from many mistakes of many kinds in attending to our medians.  The result is medians that are awful, and in no way the credit they should be to a neighborhood that is uniquely endowed with medians.  Your operation is a success, Dan.  And the patient is dead.

In that connection, have you ever heard the aphorism "the best (or perfection) is the enemy of the good?"  In the interest of saving the Village from imperfections, you have left us with something that isn't good.  In fact, it's bad.  I'm quite sure you've heard the saying "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face."  That is what the Village has done, at your very strong and unwavering encouragement.

I'm going to ask you to reconsider, and think through the approach you have taken to the Village's medians.  Dan, you say you have some relevant training in this area, you had a career in something to do with landscaping or public works or something, and you have always encouraged the Village to rely on you, and to consider you some sort of expert, in matters related to this.  And the Village has accepted your offer.  You have even shown us partial versions of what you have suggested we could expect from your taste and judgment, by doing smaller scale designs for us, like of our southern 6th Avenue entry.  So the Village is even more inclined to assume you have special and applicable expertise and value.  If that's what you wanted us to think, you succeeded in getting us to think it.  So now, Dan, give us the help we really need from you.  And if you won't, then take personal responsibility for what our medians look like.

Fred

Oh, Yeah. That.

Today, Tracy Truppman held what she called a workshop to discuss the Village's police function, and "Codes."  The latter was more broadly a discussion of the general condition, and the visual impression, of the Village and its properties.

Tracy organized the event for today, and it appears enough of her colleagues knew in advance about it that she didn't have to ask them if they liked the idea, and if they were available for today.  Only Roxy Ross and David Coviello had to check their schedules, to see if they were free.  How all that was known by two of Tracy's colleagues, before the meeting at which it was announced, is a mystery.

The meeting was Tracy's solicitation to her neighbors, to find out what they thought, and what they wanted.  And the answer was various, as it always is.  The meeting was divided into sections in which the police were discussed, and Code was discussed.

There were lots of thoughts, ideas, and wishes regarding the various domains of enforcement, but the bottom line of each consideration was the same: we have limited resources.  We can wish for all the police, and all the Code compliance, we want, but if we can't afford more officers, or speed bumps or humps or tables, or more coordinated Codes, or a new Code Officer vehicle (ours is now out of commission, and we temporarily rely on a loaner from Sunny Isles), we really can't move forward with anything.

And that's the way it always is around here.  Even during the Meet the Candidates event, each and every candidate identified as our biggest problem our fiscal limitation.  But instead of a real effort to solve that problem-- our acknowledged biggest problem-- we give ourselves over to fantasizing about how we'd like it to be.  In the ways it can't be.  Because we can't afford it to be that way.

Barbara Kuhl made a point Janey Anderson also makes: the Village as a municipal entity should lead the way, if not at least play by the same rules, regarding an adequate standard of order and visual appeal.  And that point was indirectly reinforced by the police-related concern regarding people who cut/drive across our medians.  They're not supposed to, but they do it anyway, and they don't get caught.  The concept during that part of the discussion was that our meager police force should, in addition to all the other places two officers should simultaneously be, always be there to catch and ticket people driving across the medians.  Or parking on them.

I had nothing to do with this.  I didn't say a word.  It was one of our newer 117th St. neighbors who seemed to put two and two together, and hit upon what seemed to be the kill-two-birds-with-one-stone logic that if we planted in the medians, people wouldn't park or drive on them.  They couldn't, if the medians were occupied with trees and shrubs.  From the mouths of "babes," it would seem.  The poor man had in mind that we should have beautiful medians, as they do in other municipalities nearby.  Like it would be a good thing for us somehow, to have our medians look better.  So he simply thought...  Oh, never mind.

If, in the future, Dan Keys is remembered for anything in BP, I suspect it will be for his unflinching intransigence regarding improving the medians.  As much as he possibly can, he refuses to see it done.  And he spoke against it again.  If he hasn't got a half dozen reasons why not, he's got a full dozen.  He rotates them around, depending on the conversation.  Today's convenient excuse was that specimens should not be planted simply according to the whim of the resident.  Dan carefully stayed away from adding something like "without a real plan," because he knows very well who has worked hard and tirelessly against providing that plan.  But there he was again.  Good old Dan Keys.

So we had a fun time imagining all the improvements we can't afford to make.  Although... A minute or two before one of our neighbors said it, I sent an e-mail to a guy who has access to low-priced electric cars.  He's got some new vehicles, made in China, and he can add enough batteries to get the range to 30-40 miles per day (more than enough for us), with AC.  I'm waiting to hear back.  I asked Heidi Siegel about this, but she wasn't receptive.  Sharon Ragoonan seems to be.

By the way, regarding our discussion about speeding, one of our neighbors, Ernesto Ortiz, said he would donate $1000 for speed bumps/humps/tables.  A bunch more gestures like that, and it's something to think about.  Assuming you agree with the concept of speed bumps/humps/tables.  Absent that, we're still stuck on having the right Commission at the right time to do something meaningful to get us a better revenue stream.  Then, we're not preoccupied with wouldn't-it-be-greats, and this, that, or the other, but not all or both, or maybe not any of them.  Our three new Commissioners did agree it was our biggest problem.  Let's see how motivated and creative they are to try to solve it.  Not easy?  Yeah, I know.

I'm Not Sure What to Call This One.

Tuesday night, the new Commission met for the first time on record.  There didn't need to be much discussion, but there was some.  Here are my choices as to how to title the report of this meeting.

I  considered calling this post "Thank 'God.'"  If I go with this title, I would say that Roxy Ross asked the new Commission to reaffirm, or reconfirm, a gesture the last few Commissions have honored.  Her suggestion was that a Resolution of Decorum be asserted, so that Commissioners would remember to treat each other, and non-Commission residents, with proper respect.  This gesture was sort of mindless.  It was the type of matter that is routinely passed in regular meetings by Consent: it was obvious, and it did not require any discussion.  But since there was no Consent Agenda Tuesday night, and Roxy wanted special and explicit affirmation, she introduced the matter on its own.  It was on the new Commission's Agenda.

But Roxy didn't get the affirmation she requested.  David Coviello affirmed the concept, but our new majority, the "three-pack," joined together to defeat it.  "Cost" was raised, even though there is no cost.  (Presumably, in time, given enough time, our new Commissioners, who have absolutely no relevant experience with Village matters, will learn the difference between an Ordinance, which has a cost, and Resolution, which doesn't.)  There was expressed concern about "First Amendment rights," even though no one proposed to limit anyone's opportunity to speak.  It was just a reminder to be courteous.

But the other important--critically important-- basis for resistance was that the Resolution was already on the books.  So if this intention has already been established, our "three-pack" argued, and it's already on the books, then it does not require reaffirming.  As a purely personal matter, I consider this fabulous news.  I refuse to say the "Pledge of Allegiance."  There are two reasons I won't say it, but the most glaring and superficial one is that I am a militant atheist, and I am deeply offended that our new Pledge, the one adopted in 1954, had a reference to "god" inserted in it.  This is every kind of wrong.  It violates concepts of the separation of Church and State, and it's unnecessarily provocative, and deeply offensive to me.  If anyone thinks I should say the Pledge of Allegiance, they can restore the one that existed when I was born.  I might say that one.

Since the new Commission regime doesn't want to reaffirm what's already on the books, then it should be easy for them to stop the New "Pledge of Allegiance" nonsense.  It's already been said (I said it in elementary school, and I still remember having said it), and it doesn't need to be said any more.  Just like the Decorum Resolution.  Thank you, new Commission majority.  Thank you, "three-pack."

My other choice for a title is "Dream Interpretation: Manifest Content and Latent Content."  Here's how I would put that one together.  I would talk about so-called manifest dream content, which is the obvious story of the dream.  It's the part you remember and relate to someone else.  The latent content is what the dream really means, and what the conscious symbols unconsciously represent.  So your memory of the dream is that you waited for your friend to meet you at the park, but your friend forgot and didn't show up.  That's the manifest content.  The latent content, which you learn in analyzing this dream with your therapist, is that you haven't gotten over the loss of your father in your childhood, when he went to work, but had a heart attack and died, and you never saw him again.  But you were too young to have been able to understand this, and all you unconsciously continued to feel was that you were abandoned.

So I would still have started this story with Roxy Ross' proposal about the Decorum Resolution, and I would have summarized the "three-pack's" multiple and nonsensical resistances.  I would have suggested that these interactions were manifest content: Roxy proposed something, and three of her colleagues gave her a range of reasons why not.

I would then have looked a bit more deeply into these interactions, and I would have interpreted that Roxy, in proposing something that was not strictly necessary, was asserting her own considerable seniority on the Commission, and she was asking her new colleagues to adopt now accepted conventions.  She was being the big dog, trying to civilize them, and she was reminding them who was the heart and soul of the Commission.  That, I would have said, was Roxy's latent content.  The latent content of the response she got was that her new colleagues, much like the other "three-pack" of Cooper, Watts, and Jacobs, were asserting themselves, too, and rubbing Roxy's nose in the mess they were about to make.  The latent message delivered to Roxy this time could be translated to "siddown and shut up, Ross, or we'll smack you down.  Your wisdom, perspective, and good nature are no longer relevant around here.  Do we understand each other?"  I believe that was the latent message from our new "three-pack."  After all, they had to work a bit hard to come up with really lame and irrational excuses not to do something harmless, that a succession of prior Commissions have done.

There wasn't much else that happened in the meeting.  Mayor Tracy Truppman wants "workshops," so we can closely examine Village residents' thoughts about the functioning of various Village areas, such as the police, recreation, and our Code function.  It will be interesting to find out what Tracy has in mind, and if she cares any more what her neighbors think than she does what Roxy Ross thinks.  And both Tracy and Jenny Johnson-Sardella want to be more closely "in the loop" regarding hirings, like of our new Code Officer.  This hiring is the responsibility of the Manager, not of the Commission, and it's unclear what kind of say the new Commission wants over it.  Tracy herself has been equivocal as to whether she thinks the new Manager was a terrible choice, as she told us just after we hired the new Manager, or whether she thinks the new Manager is a wonderful asset regarding Codes, as she told us when she was trying to get us not to approve the new driveway and swale Ordinance.  Perhaps she'll eventually figure out what she thinks of the new Manager.

And now, immediately former Mayor David Coviello told us he will be resigning from the Commission, because a family situation is causing him to have to move out of BP.

So that was the meeting.  If you have a preference for the title, feel free to comment.

"Funny Little City(sic)."

I was talking this morning with my brother.  The topic was politics, and new regimes.  We talked about the big new regime, and the small one.

My brother was under the impression that we in BP "can't pay [our] bills" on our revenue.  I told him that we do pay our bills; it's only that we're selective about what we agree is a bill.  We won't agree that street repair is a bill, because we choose not to try to repair our streets.  (Because we couldn't afford to repair them.)  The same is true of median development.  We built a new building, and renovated the log cabin, but only because more than half the money was donated to us by the State, and we groused about paying the rest.  Not only do we not agree to improve drainage, and therefore that improving drainage is even a bill, but some of us want to claim that we don't need to improve drainage, because we don't have a drainage problem.  That's what some of us assert.  So we won't have a bill.  And we won't then fail to be able to pay the bill.

My brother of course fully understood our little "situation."  We have extremely limited ability to have revenue, because we don't have the diversification of revenue sources available to almost all municipalities.  He knows all about Golden Beach and Indian Creek Village.  Yeah, yeah, yeah.

He also knows all about the municipalities like CNM, and CMB (where he lives).  They have revenue sources, and they're not one bit shy about tapping them.  They know what they need, and they know what they want, and they're going to take proper care of themselves.  Among other things, they have pride.  Or call it self-respect.

My brother thought we charged ourselves as much as we could: 10 mills.  No, I told him, we can't quite get ourselves to pull that particular trigger.  We stall ourselves out at 9.7, a number that has no meaning, except it's been the same number for a few years now.  It's not the same revenue for the Village, nor is it the same tax from property owners.  It's just a millage number we choose not to change.  Even though it doesn't mean anything.  My brother asked me how much the difference between 9.7 mills and 10 mills was worth to the Village.  I told him I didn't know, because property values are a moving target, and there are new sales, but I estimated that since it was recently about $50K, and values have improved and been bolstered by some recent and substantial sales, it was probably somewhere around $75K or so now.  It's the difference between trying to decide whether to redo the Codes, or instead resurfacing the tot lot, but being unable to decide which to do, so not doing either...and doing both.  That's what we could do with $75K: both.

And I pointed out, being back on my soapbox and all, that what that $75K would cost the average BP property owner used to be about $45 per year, but is now probably about $60 per year.

My brother thought we were limited to 10 mills ad valorem property tax, but I told him that the 10 mill limit is only for the easy part.  It's what an elected body can impose on property owners, on it's own initiative.  But a municipality is not limited at all to 10 mills.  I don't know if there is a limit to what residents of a municipality can choose to charge themselves for ad valorem property tax.  It's just a matter of how motivated they are to address municipal issues and responsibilities, and how much pride they have.

The fact is, we could charge ourselves twice as much millage as we do, if we agreed by referendum to do it.  The Village portion of the ad valorem tax bill could be 19.4 mills, instead of 9.7.  And that wouldn't double the overall ad valorem bill (the one you just paid, or are just getting ready to pay).  It would only double about a third of the bill.  The two other major portions are for the County and the School Board, and we have nothing to do with how much they charge County property-owners.

I realize I get very little support for an idea like this.  I get none from the Commissions.  Some years back, Steve Bernard suggested we tax ourselves at 10 mills.  He was on the Commission then.  Nowadays, Dan Keys is known to agree we should increase our millage.  I don't know what he thought many years ago, when he was on the Commission.

Very interestingly, Mac Kennedy advocated for increased millage, so we can get our work done.  What's interesting about that is that Mac, and Dan Schneiger, are new Village residents.  People like them do the heavy fiscal lifting in the Village, because they established a property value recently.  They homestead, of course, but in the meantime, they're the big dogs, ad valorem tax-wise.  And they're willing to go higher, and suggest the rest of us do, too.  People like Max Deitermann, who owns very expensive property here, don't urge low taxes.

People like Max, and Mac and Dan, not only have the most to "lose" by our having higher millage, but coincidentally (?), people like them are also strong advocates for an improved, "Best We Can Be," Village.  And they have the experience with property ownership, municipal development, and design sense, to know what it takes.

But too many of the rest of us can't see that far, or that wide.  We fuss over the silliest, most insignificant, things and amounts of money.  We resist ponying up a few dollars to improve ourselves.  We complain about a very substantial Village Hall project, because we have to pay for part of it.  Some of us form whole campaigns over not wanting to have to construct driveways on our properties, which we have to do anyway, and which will improve our own properties(!), as well as the Village overall.

My brother and I talked about all of this, which is what led him twice to describe us as a "funny little city(sic)."

Reality Really Does Bite Some Times.

I was elected to the Commission in December, 2013.  I had a very clear track record in the Village, owing to my continuous involvement at reasonably high levels, and I faithfully attended Commission meetings for eight years before that.  It would not be hard, or inaccurate, to argue that I had a pretty good sense of what was going on in the Village, and how things worked.

In addition to my normal activities, I also started a Village-focused blog (this one) in which I held forth without much, if any, restraint regarding my opinions and positions about things.  And there was the Meet the Candidates event that year, where I further expressed opinions and even intentions.

To take two issues that were prominent at the time, I expressed myself in this blog, making clear I did not favor annexation, and at the Meet the Candidates event, I answered a direct question regarding outsourcing sanitation to say I didn't favor it.  What I knew or thought I knew, and what I imagined, led me to both conclusions, with the confidence that came from limited information.  "Ignorance is bliss" kind of thing.  (It's not the truth that sets you free; it's not knowing what the truth is.)

Once I became a Commissioner, and was exposed to much more information, I famously and publicly changed my mind about both issues.  I would say I learned things I had not previously known, and I had a chance to discuss both issues with people in conversations that were far beyond the superficial and emotional ones I had had before.

Before I became a Commissioner, my exposure to reality was incomplete.  After I became a Commissioner, it was much more complete and extensive.  The other thing that happens after someone becomes a Commissioner is that he or she begins to hear from people who had not been in the inner circle or comfort zone of the pre-Commissioner.  The result of all this is that you are offered opportunities to expand what you know, and how you think, and you're in a position to feel more responsible to consider those opportunities.

So the new Commissioner, or probably any elected official of any length of tenure, has a choice.  In some cases, this choice is a dilemma.  Do you ignore or refuse to hear what is newly offered, because you've already made up your mind?  Do you hear it, but dismiss it, because you feel personally committed, or beholden to your supporters, not to waver from your original path?

One of our neighbors chided me for being "closed-minded" about something.  I think it was outsourcing.  She was angry and frustrated with me, because I decided the right path was not the one she favored.  What I said to her was that I couldn't think of any better example of open-mindedness than an ability and willingness to change one's mind, given new information.  And I still feel that way.

As an elected official, you are guaranteed to frustrate and disappoint someone.  No matter what you do or don't do, and no matter the issue.  You only decide whom you're willing to frustrate and disappoint, and on what basis you will do it.  You can respond to what you used to think, or what your friends prefer, or what you feel you promised.  Or, you can respond to what you come to learn is true, and more true than what you thought before.  If actual reality happens to be in line with what you already thought, good for you.  If it isn't, you have a complicated dilemma on your hands.  But no matter what you do, or don't do, you are guaranteed to upset someone (perhaps it makes you feel better that you've pleased someone else), and that someone will have as compelling, impassioned, and strident a competing approach as the one you went with instead.

For me, I decided it was better to be "right," whatever "right" was.  And my way of trying to answer that question was to choose whatever I thought made the Village a better (stronger, more stable, more likely to succeed, more pleasing) place.

The problem was expressed in one of the questions in this year's Meet the Candidates event: would you rather choose something that makes people happy now, or would you take a broader and longer range view that might leave some people-- maybe lots of people-- unhappy?  Or angry.  Or furious.  Or wanting nothing more than to get you out of office.  That's the choice, and that's the dilemma.  It will happen to every elected official, frequently.  It doesn't feel like that at first, when you get elected.  You feel chosen, like someone's choice from among others.  (Which of course you were.)  You feel approved of.  You feel uniquely legitimate, as if someone has told you you were right, and you should do whatever you think is best.  (For...?)  I'm sure that's the way every election winner feels.  And I felt that way even though I knew that there was a population of Village residents who really didn't want me there.

That's what I, and every other elected official, thinks and feels, and I have not the slightest doubt it's what our new elected officials think and feel.  That's why they'll confront and deal with what we all did.  The only question is which way they'll go, on any issue, and what will inform and motivate the choices they will make.



"The color of truth is grey."  Andre Gide, Author, Nobel laureate (1869-1951)

"Inclusion and Diversity?" Again?

(Mac Kennedy asked me to post something about this matter on this blog.  I told him he was more than welcome to do it himself, but he wanted me to do it.  So here it is.  You're welcome, Mac.)



Mac Kennedy is up in arms.  He's let the whole world know about it.  He seems to have gotten someone kicked off Nextdoor, and now, he's railing at the Commission, and the rest of us.  Outgoing Commissioners, incoming Commissioners, everyone.  Mac wants something done!  He wants someone read the riot act.

And here's what this is all about.  Ron Coyle, one of our neighbors and even a former BP Commissioner, was simply and perfectly legally speaking his mind on Nextdoor, and he happened, innocently enough, I'm sure, to observe "Let's be objective, we are surrounded by negros [sic], pretend you are in South Africa, and not America USA [sic].  It's hard to believe but that is where we find ourselves here in the Park...I've lived here all of my life, 58 years, and we have never seen the amount of crime we are now seeing.  The darkening of our demographics is profoundly to blame...the public schools in the area...are all overrun with darkies...we spend exorbitant amounts more to send our kids to schools with students and teachers of the proper caliber and color."  And then, he cites Darwin, although the citation seems relatively like a non sequitur.

So, Mac, what's the problem?  Ron has an opinion, and he's clearly thought carefully about the matter.  Doesn't he have every right to his opinion, and to share it with the rest of us?

And some of our neighbors turned out to be really intolerant of Ron Coyle and his ideas.  Words like "racism," "ugliness," "bigotry," "hatred," "twisted," "offensive," and "deplorable" were used.  Some wanted him "muted" from Nextdoor, or worse.  Just because Ron Coyle, lifelong BP resident and even former Commissioner, happens to take a very dim view of "negros [sic]" or "darkles," or whatever he likes to call them.

Some wondered whether Ron also took a dim view of homosexual people, or hispanics, or Jews, or any of a number of other groups.  But Ron never said that.  All he intensely and viscerally hates is "negros [sic]."  You know, "darkies."  Really, what's the big deal, if Ron Coyle happens to hate black people?

And some people seemed to think it is a big deal.  Like as if they thought Ron Coyle's hatred and intolerance were not only offensive, but to worry about.  Mac Kennedy, for example, allowed himself to consider that someone with such thoughts could "act out...physically," and that this seemed to him like the kind of sentiment that leads to behaviors about which people would in retrospect say "why didn't someone do something before?"  Another BP resident, commenting on Nextdoor, wrote "For a long time, many of us, including me, have had our heads in the sand, or have looked the other way, and have said this is the stuff that goes on in other places or in the movies.  Well, no, it's alive and well and living amongst us...Knowing that this exists in our midst, and more importantly, seeing it and hearing it, has given me a new perspective."

But come on, Mac, people don't spout this kind of antisocial nonsense, and then act out, having gotten it off their chests.  Well, maybe they do.  Yeah, OK, people like racist Ron Coyle might be to worry about.

But what's he going to do, "go postal?"  I mean, he doesn't have a gun or anything, does he?  (Mac, I'm asking, does he?)

Three years ago, at the Meet the Candidates event, we were asked about our concerns regarding "diversity" in BP.  I particularly remember David Coviello's response.  (Frankly, I don't think any of us thought there was much of a problem about tolerance of diversity.)  David said that while he was campaigning, one of our neighbors said something about David's age, apparently judging it to be greater than it was, on account of David's (very, very slightly) receding hairline.  So David suggested sensitivity regarding our elderly population.  (Jeez, David, did you take a look at Drew Dillworth, who gave up and shaved his head, or Noah Jacobs, or me?  And you were whining about your mane?  Talk about lack of sensitivity!)  I mean, three years ago, that's what we thought we had to worry about regarding tolerance of other people.  And now, we have people who think "Make America Great Again" really means "Make America White Again," and some well-spoken white supremacist named Spencer, and Ron Coyle.  Man, have we lost a lot of ground in only three years.

I Was Wrong. They Do Have an Agenda.

Last night, the outgoing Commission had its last business meeting.  The urgent matter was approving the second reading of an Ordinance, but a few other matters were added, to get them off the books and into action.  One of those matters was the commitment the Village already intended, to acquire four new police vehicles.  There are four that are very high mileage and increasingly low reliability, the maintenance costs for them exceed the cost of a lease-purchase, the money was already set aside in the new budget, and all we had to do is place the final stamp of approval on the commitment.  The matter was listed in the Consent part of the Agenda, because it wasn't worth discussion.  Or so we assumed.

We received a letter from one of the Commissioners-elect, Jenny Johnson-Sardella, telling us why this matter should not be considered by the outgoing Commission.  It involved an expense, and Jenny proposed that it was not properly publicized.  Jenny couldn't be at the meeting, for reasons she did not specify.

Tracy Truppman, another Commissioner-elect, was there, and she said the same thing Jenny did.  Will Tudor, the other Commissioner-elect and "three-pack" member, wasn't there.

Jenny and Tracy had outgoing Commissioner Barbara Watts to add muscle for them, and Barbara took the matter off the Consent Agenda, so we would have to discuss it.

As I said, this matter has been discussed before.  It was discussed a few months ago, when the budget was approved.  The reason to cycle out old, high-mileage, and low-reliability police cruisers is that they cost too much to maintain, and they're not reliable.  These are emergency vehicles we're talking about.  Emergency vehicles that are not reliable is not a good thing.  So on the surface of it, there was no reason not to go forward with the intention, as we had already planned and for which we had made fiscal room, and the sooner, the better.  These cars take many months to complete, because they are specially equipped.  They're much more expensive than similar models for sale at car dealerships.

The only reason not to move ahead with this plan last night was to preserve the opportunity to cancel it.  And since cancelling the intention to order these cruisers is the one and only possible outcome of delaying the order, then it must be the reason two of our Commissioners-elect, and one outgoing Commissioner, wanted the delay.

We're then left to wonder why they would want to cancel such an order.  It can't be that police cruisers are considered trivial or unnecessary.  We very typically clamor for more police action and visibility and effectiveness.  It can't be saving money.  Repairing old cruisers, apart from keeping them unreliable and unavailable, costs more than paying the lease on new vehicles.

But there is one reason the new Commission might want us not to have new cruisers.  Tracy Truppman has told us what that reason is.  Tracy has decided, for whatever are her reasons, that we should cut back what she somehow understands or imagines our police expense to be, by no longer offering our officers take-home vehicles.  So presumably, Tracy, with the apparent agreement of Jenny and Barbara, has calculated that the fewer police cruisers we have, the less available they are to be provided as take-homes to our officers.  This is apparently Tracy's, and Jenny's and Barbara's, idea of an end run around the contracted commitment we made to our police officers, providing a take-home vehicle as a consolation or compensation for underpaying them.

And let's say, just for purpose of discussion, that Tracy and Jenny and Barbara had a point worth looking at.  Let's suppose that if we have fewer vehicles, and they're not very good, that we would have grounds not to be able to spare them for our officers to take home.  The theory about police officers taking home their cruisers versus not taking them home, apart from how the officers feel about it, is that if officers take home their vehicles, then municipalities have to have more vehicles available.  And the vehicles are only used when the given officer is on duty, or when he or she is commuting to and from the Village.  If officers don't take home their cruisers, and have to use their personal cars to commute to and from work, then the municipality needs fewer cruisers, and those cruisers are used continuously, by whoever is on duty each shift.  So one scheme requires more vehicles, which are spared when officers are off duty, and the other scheme requires fewer vehicles, which wear out much sooner, because they're used much more heavily.  Most knowledgeable people who calculate this conclude that it's essentially a wash, with the difference represented by the consolation or compensation experienced by the officers.  And since our officers-- the ones we underpay-- have been more or less content to accept the take-home vehicles as consolation or compensation enough, that's what we do.  It's in their PBA contract with us.

But here's the other problem, and the real problem, with Jenny's and Tracy's and Barbara's proposal.  Setting aside how not nice and not respectful and not honorable it is.  If we don't have newer police cruisers, then we have older police cruisers.  Those are the unreliable ones, that eat up more money in repairs than it would cost to replace them.  It means that when you or I have an emergency, and we need police help, we might not get it, if a cruiser won't start, or dies on the way to us.  It completely defeats the entire purpose of an emergency vehicle.

So last night, we went ahead with our lease commitment.  Bob Anderson wasn't there, and the vote to make the commitment was 3-1, with Barbara Watts representing her incoming replacements, who are trying to figure out a way to squeeze the BP police department.  This was what Tracy told us she would try to do, it's the way she said she'd try to do it, and she's been good for her agenda.

"Reality Bites"

Donald Trump told us he was going to rid us of all the pesky and illegitimate illegal aliens.  "Eleven million" of them, he estimated.  Since Trump has never held any elected office, and has no government experience of any kind, it wasn't clear whence he got his figure.  But that's what he told everyone.  And for whatever were their reasons, they believed him.  So they elected him President of the United States, because he said he was going to correct all the ills he and his supporters felt sure there must be.  Even though none of them had any reason to know.  And many Republicans who did have a reason to know were very reluctant, if not downright refusing, to back him.

Yesterday-- and who could possibly know why-- Trump told us he was going to rid us of "two to three million" illegal aliens.  And he specified that the aliens he would deal with were the criminals, whom we would apprehend, and we'd either incarcerate them, or deport them.

I have no idea whence Trump got his "11 million" number, or why he decided it was somehow really "two to three million," but when the bluster settled, he found himself where we already are: if someone commits a crime, and is caught, and is an illegal alien, they either get incarcerated or deported.  That is precisely, in detail, what we already do.  It's unclear whether Trump would have been elected, if he had said it's all working fine, and he wouldn't change a thing: if he had said there is a process, and that process has due constraints and requirements, and he couldn't properly or legally do things any differently.

We just elected a new Commission.  The Commission is new importantly because there is a new majority.  Not only are they numerically a majority, but they ran as a group or a slate, and they have declared unity.  And they've told us exactly what Donald Trump told us, and based on the same thing.  They've told us the system is terrible, and the Commissioners are terrible, and no one has had the imagination or assertiveness they have to straighten it all out, and they know all this because they have overactive fantasy lives.  Just like Donald Trump and his supporters do.  Trump's platform is deconstructing already.  I wonder when our new Commissioners' will.

I've been hearing about two targets at which our new Commission will reportedly take aim.  One is the recreation function of the Village, and the other is the Police department.  And as best I can tell, trying to read between lines, since none of the new Commissioners has been at all specific (with one exception), this is about reining in expenses.

I don't know what the asserted issue about recreation will be.  We aren't told.  We've been Trumped: we're just told cuts will be made, with no examples given as to what kinds of cuts these might be.  Very, very recently, there has been outcry about the poor surfacing of the tot lot.  BP residents-- most certainly those with tots-- have been agitating for a surface that is cleaner, easier to keep clean, and less likely to feature used hypodermic needles and animal excrement, for example.  One alternative we considered was rubber surfacing made just for this kind of purpose.  And it's not cheap.  So let's assume that at the very least, the new Commission will ignore an upgrade like this.  So what are they going to tell their neighbors who want better from us?  Tough luck, we're more interested in saving pennies, and cutting corners?  Oh, that'll be a winner.  And even if they don't upgrade the surface of the tot lot, that leaves us with no savings.  It's just avoiding a new expense.  So what would they like to cut?  Don't expect me to tell you.  I'm wondering myself.  They, like Donald Trump, managed to get themselves elected on the strength of meaningless slogans and platitudes, and absolutely no relevant experience, but at some point, they're going to have to do something.  And will have to be based on something.  They'll have to get real.

And what do they think they're going to do to reduce the police budget?  The police budget in BP, as is true essentially everywhere, is about half of the overall budget.  The fact that it's half of our budget is not a sign of anything amiss.   And it isn't more than that, because we underpay our police officers, and we provide for them as little as possible.  If we're not the lowest in the County, we're very near it.  We don't provide adequate training opportunities, because we can't afford to, we're at pains to provide adequate equipment, and we rely on hand-me-down cruisers, because we can't afford a fleet of new cars.  And much of what we do provide for our officers (which means for ourselves, since they're here for the one and only reason to serve and protect us) is according to our contract with them.  So we can't change it until the contract comes up for renewal.  And when it does, and we try to tell our officers, whom we underpay, that we would like to take from them their take-home cruisers (that's the one exception), which are part of the reason, or the compensation, or the excuse, that they agree to work for less than anyone else, how do we imagine they will react?  Maybe they'll tell us we're so magically wonderful to work for that they'd stay here even if we didn't pay them anything, and they had to lease their cars from us.  Or maybe not.

It'll be interesting to watch Donald Trump, and our new Commission, deconstruct, as they have to face reality.  We'll see how they adjust when their fantasies get replaced by real issues and real people and real problems.

Please come to Commission meetings.  If you don't want to participate, at least bear witness.

Conflict of Interest. The Song and Dance Game Anyone Can Play.

It is almost guaranteed you were not at the drainage presentation at the log cabin yesterday morning.  Very few Village residents were there.

The issue was how to address our problem with ground water.  The presenters were representatives of the Craig A Smith Company, which specializes in improving drainage in communities.

The Smith reps gave us a slide show about the drainage problem they say we have.  They've performed a study, for which we paid, and we already had a previous study performed by staff at FIU.  I don't know if we paid for that study.  It was from 2003.  But the studies agreed we have a problem, and the Smith reps explained what we can do about it.  The main thing we can do is find funding, and hire Smith to do the work.

It wouldn't take a genius to imagine the possibility that Smith were motivated to find a problem, and offer to accept money to ameliorate it.  You could make such an argument about anyone in business.  They think everyone needs whatever they're selling.  Perhaps of interest, though, Smith did give us some ideas about how to find grant funding that at least in some cases has allowed municipalities to achieve even extensive drainage upgrades without spending a dime of their own money.  So there was a level of understanding there of the limitation of some municipalities when it comes to being able to accomplish large projects like this one.  But still, Smith had something substantial to gain, if they could persuade us we have a problem, and we should fix it.

On the other side, there were some of the few Village residents present who frankly predictably argued that we don't really have a drainage problem.  These BP residents, none of whom is an appropriately trained, credentialed, and experienced civil engineer, and who did not technically study the matter beyond taking companion photographs after and further after rain, decided they know more about these matters than do professionals who do nothing but this all day, every day, for a broad range of municipalities.  They seemed to be arguing something that is very much not in their own bailiwicks.  One of these BP neighbors even trotted out his stash of photographs, taken two hours apart, showing a nice and tidy disappearance of puddles after the rain.  (Of course, the "before" photographs showed very small puddles, so it's not clear that he didn't choose either times of light rain, or streets that don't happen to have much of a problem.)

Likewise, it wouldn't take a genius to conclude that if someone doesn't want to pay for something, a great starting place would be to conclude that whatever it is isn't needed.   Frankly, that seems to be what was going on here regarding the drainage issue.  The people who seemed most poised against the idea that we have a drainage problem, and/or that the Smith proposal was what we should do about it, tend generally to resist anything that costs more money.

On the surface of it, it's a tough dilemma: which people are more motivated by conflict of interest?  Is it the prospective "vendor," who could be using us, or any other area, just to get work?  Or is it the BP residents who never seem to want to pay for anything, now finding (or imagining) a reason we shouldn't have to pay for this, either?  And some of those same residents also tend not to like change, as well as being poised against any suggestion made by a sometimes majority of the current Commission.

One BP resident seemed to propose to disqualify at least part of the resident questionnaire aspect of the investigation, when she pointed out that her block was designated as having a problem, while she herself had completed the questionnaire, and said that in her experience and observation, the block had no problem.  But it was pointed out that there were a few questionnaires from that block indicating that some of her neighbors apparently do think there's a problem.  Were her neighbors overstating a problem?  Was she understating one?

As Gene Schreiner of Craig A Smith said, he didn't approach the Village suggesting it had a problem it should hire him to solve.  It was the Village who reached out to Craig A Smith, complaining of something.  He's just doing what we asked him to do.  And he said he's seen evidence of the kind of macadam damage that water causes.  And we have some residents who complain of various kinds of water intrusion and damage.  I asked Mr Schreiner to prove to us, with photographs, that this water damage problem exists here, and to add that proof as an amendment to the voluminous report his company already provided.  He says he will.

This is a very expensive project.  It's no less expensive if we can find some funding source that will pay for it.  It just becomes not our money.  But it's our Village.  If we don't really have a problem, we shouldn't pay, or ask anyone else to pay, to fix one.  But if we do have a problem (and much of the evidence and testimony made it seemingly impossible to imagine we don't), it would be foolish and short-sighted of us not to commit ourselves to addressing it.  And sometimes, foolishness and short-sightedness have been our specialty.  Especially when it comes to ponying up for something.

I Said it Before, and I'll Say it Again. We Have One Real Problem Here.

Well, maybe 1 and 1A.

Our problem is money.  We don't have enough.  We live as fakes, because we try to pretend we really don't have our problem, or it's not the problem, or it's not a problem.  We stick our heads in the sand.  We whistle in the dark.

Some people complain that there ought to be training to be a parent.  You should need a license, to show that you have an idea what you're doing.  Other people say the same thing about being an elected official, or a judge.

Likewise, it's possible for an area to become a municipality without having to demonstrate real viability.  We did that, in 1933.  And we're not viable today, either.  I don't know who paid to create our streets.  Maybe it was Arthur Griffing.  I should try to look it up.  Maybe I'll ask Seth Bramson.  But unless creating streets used to be dirt cheap (sorry), it's something we could not have done then, with donations from the few BP residents at the time.  Somehow, the streets lasted, more or less, and we use the same ones today.  But they're in disrepair, getting worse over time (as does everything), and we can't afford to fix them.

I have no reason to believe our very generously provided and arrayed medians were ever other than spare.  Is that back in vogue now, since we embrace minimalism?  But they're not really minimal, or minimalist.  They're ratty, skanky, and just poorly developed.  Watch them, and walk them.  They're used often enough as ready places to do U-turns, and they're used as garbage dumps and pet excrement receptacles.  They're used for what they look like.  And why aren't they better developed?  Why aren't they treated with the pride they deserve?  Apart from the obstructiveness and failure to provide leadership from the relevant Board, it's because we can't afford to do anything with them.

We would never have improved the log cabin and built the new administration building, if we hadn't gotten a grant of funds representing over half the cost.  We never did, and we couldn't have.  It's true we're cheap (that's 1A), but it's also true we simply could not have afforded it.

We have a drainage problem here.  Yeah, yeah, I know, Milton, no, we don't really have a drainage problem.  Yes, we do.  And it's not that Milton and some others don't want to pay to address that problem.  Well, they don't, but also, it's way too expensive for us.  The rough estimate at this point, for a new Village-wide drainage system, is about $13M.  Maybe we could get another matching grant for half of it?  Oh, good, then it's only $6.5M.  No way.  Not around here.

Do not be fooled.  This is not about sharpening pencils, and trying to ferret out fraud and other mischief.  The budget is bare bones.  It's only deciding which of the comparatively minor municipal responsibilities we want to address, at the expense of the rest of them, while we continue to sing ourselves the song about how we don't really have the major problems.  Furthermore, there is no fraud.  There never was.  It's true that before we had professional management, we had non-professional mismanagement.  But that wasn't fraud.  It was just the ineptitude you have to get from people trying to do a job they weren't trained to do and didn't know how to do.  Now, we have the professionals, the jobs are done properly, and we're still very deep in a large fiscal hole.

We need an infusion, and we're not going to get it.  Our amazing opportunity was squandered by a Commission that didn't know what it was doing, had no vision, and didn't want anything for the Village.  That was the last Commission.  The current Commission, which is a few weeks from being over, tried its best, but it was too late.  The opportunity for annexation appears to be in the rear view mirror, and we're on a super highway.  We can't pull over and back up.

We could try to do better with millage, but we won't get far.  The difference between 9.7 mills and 10 mills will get us maybe let's say up to $100K.  It's hard to tell, because values are a moving target, especially with some recent nice sales.  So I would have said something like $50K, but I'm rounding up.  We could get heroic, and use referendum to jump ourselves up to 12 mills, or 15, or 20.  Just for a few years.  (Stop laughing yourself sick, and get up off the floor.  I'm trying to have a real conversation with you here.)  The facts are, no one would agree to that, and it would be even less fair to our high value neighbors than we're already being.  You do understand that most of us pay too little tax, and some of us pay way too much.  Increasing millage hurts the latter neighbors the most.

So another possibility is to use assessments.  Apparently, some kinds of assessment don't count as part of the millage.  We can have our millage-- let's say 9.7, or 10-- and an assessment.  That's a way of raising our taxes, and it affects everyone the same.  It's not ad valorem.  If the assessment, let's say for the police, or the medians, or whatever else, is $500 or $1000 per year, it's that amount for everyone, whether their house is worth $200K or $2M.  That's a bad deal for those of us who are limited?  True.  But it's respectful and appreciative of the bad deal suffered by those of us who paid a lot for our houses.

The point is, we have to do something.  We can't just act like children.  When we do that for long enough, we eventually have to do something about the log cabin, and build a new administration building.  And many of us fuss and complain about it.  But it's because for decades, we didn't rise to the normal maintenance occasion.  And if we continue to wait, while our streets deteriorate, thanks in part to our drainage problem, we'll have to pay to fix them both, and it won't be cheap.  And we'll still fuss and complain about all the money we have to pay.  Or that we want someone else to pay.  Because we're cheap (you remember problem 1A), and we don't want to take real responsibility.  We're grown-ups, because we have some sort of income, and we own houses and drive cars?  Very nice.  But it's more complicated than that, and it requires more from us.

So that's our problem.  It's our main problem.  It's problem 1.  And problem 1A.  If there's a problem 1B, it's the need we always have, but don't always satisfy, for a Commission with vision and ambition, that will invite us, urge us, and require us to take responsibility for ourselves and our Village.  That's our problem.  That's our problem.

PS: We're $1000 short of the goal for the "Ballplayer" sculpture that's in Griffing Park.  We need that much more in donations.  If you haven't donated to this sculpture, please do so.  Donate any amount you like, write a check to the Village, and memo it "Ballplayer."  Ten c-notes, 20 fifties, 50 twenties, or 100 sawbucks will do it.  If you're thinking of a fin, step it up.  If you want me or Chuck Ross to pick it up from you, contact us.  We'll be right over.  And we don't have these kinds of dumb problems if every BP property owner pays $8 (eight dollars) per year in an extra tax/assessment/donation. OK, fine, $7.   Sheesh.