Tuesday’s meeting of the Miami-Dade County Commission meeting was big fun. On the Agenda was a resolution relating to the annexation of property by the Village of Biscayne Park. This property abuts the Florida East Coast Railway to the east of Biscayne Park, but is directly adjacent to North Miami’s southern border. This resolution was sponsored by Commissioner Sally Heyman.
It’s no secret that Heyman never cared much for the City of North Miami. The vast majority of the city is represented by Commission Chairman Jean Monestime’s District 2. Only a tiny fraction of North Miami is in Sally Heyman’s District 4. She represents the section east of Biscayne Boulevard, including Keystone Point and Sans Souci.
The Village of Biscayne Park is also in her gerrymandered district.
Heyman’s obvious goal to help Biscayne Park annex a parcel of unincorporated land would not only help the village get out of financial dire straights, but also could possibly expand her own district as well.
At the meeting, Sally Heyman moved to approve Biscayne Park’s application to annex a small parcel of land referred to as the Biscayne Corridor East Parcel, bordered on the north by NE 121 Street, on the west by the Florida East Coast Railway, on the east by Biscayne Boulevard, on south by NE 119 Street, and also including a dangling triangle piece of land along Biscayne Boulevard.
While this piece of property abuts both North Miami and Biscayne Park, there is absolutely no direct access from the Village across the Florida East Coast Railroad tracks. In fact, anyone wishing to travel from Biscayne Park to the Biscayne Corridor East Parcel – INCLUDING POLICE VEHICLES – would have to travel through North Miami along NE 125 Street, which is four blocks north of its own proposed northern border, in order to get from point A to point B. (The only other point of access is on the southern side of Biscayne Park at NE 107th Street through Miami-Dade County.)
In essence, if this were approved, Biscayne Park residents would have to encroach a neighboring city just to travel from one side of their own village to the other.
Unless Biscayne Park plans to construct a railroad crossing or a bridge over the tracks in order to create an access from its Village to the proposed property, this does not make any sense whatsoever. And even then, it would have to declare eminent domain in order to usurp a back yard or a parking lot.
Then again, Biscayne Park obviously can’t pay it’s own bills, much less build a bridge. Which is precisely why it’s attempting this ill conceived land grab.
If the Village of Biscayne Park were to successfully annex this piece of land, which I’m told would generate approximately approximately half million dollars in tax revenues a year, it would help them get out of the red. There is presently no commercial property in Biscayne Park. Its government and all public services are financed by property taxes, and its millage rate is already 9.75. While the impending fiscal bust is nowhere near as dire as, say, Opa-locka’s, if the Village can’t remain viable it would ostensibly have to be reabsorbed by the county or annexed into a surrounding municipality.
Here’s the thing.
In its application for annexation, the Village of Biscayne Park made some interesting, and quite a few erroneous, assertions.
The East Area Annexation Report claims that the Village prides itself in maintaining a “small town atmosphere.” That’s a perfectly legitimate ideal for a small village; however, by refusing to allow zoning for any commercial property within its current borders, the Village has limited its own revenue potential. By applying to annex this parcel of commercial, multi-family, and light industrial zoned property, Biscayne Park is attempting to increase its revenue without having to tax its 3,147 residents to death or compromise the “atmosphere” of its .6 square mile triangle of land.
Ironically, on page 24, of its application for annexation entitled Statement of Reasons for Annexation, Biscayne Park Village “believes the annexation area is complementary to development already existing in the village.” Furthermore, “The Village intends to protect and maintain the character of the village while infusing that character into its current eastern edge by annexation.”
Considering that there are no single family homes, almost no green spaces or parks (a scant 0.2 acres, or 0.5%, of the entire 43.5 acres), and no quaint log cabins located anywhere in the Biscayne Corridor East Parcel, I’m not sure how this annexation area would “complement” Biscayne Park’s “small town atmosphere” whatsoever.
Furthermore, as I mentioned above, Biscayne Park is completely separated from the annexation parcel by the Florida East Coast Railroad. Even though the Village offers as an incentive for current residents of the Biscayne Corridor East Parcel certain benefits, including parks, there is no pedestrian access or public transportation available for those residents to get to those parks.
Although Biscayne Park intends to incorporate “future land use designations” in its comprehensive plan “upon annexation” (page 30) in accordance with existing Miami-Dade County zoning districts, should its application be rejected, the Village admits that no changes will be contemplated.
And while the economic benefits to the residents of Biscayne Park would be considerable – on paper anyway (more on that in a moment), Biscayne Park’s annexation application admits that the only benefit to residents of the Biscayne Corridor East Parcel is a “more localized government.”
Gee, thanks.
The proposed property to be annexed consists of several apartment/condominium complexes, retails stores, strip malls, office buildings and similar commercial businesses, all owned by fifteen different entities, according to the Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser. In addition to the commercial businesses, there are approximately 430 residents who live in the Biscayne Corridor East Parcel.
I’m sure all 430 of those residents – or at least the ones who are paying attention – are absolutely thrilled at the opportunity of a “more localized government.”
Um, nah.
Considering that a slew of those residents from the affected apartment buildings showed up at the commission meeting yesterday wearing red tee shirts emblazoned with “VOTE NO BISCAYNE PARK ANNEX,” my guess is that they’re not interested.
Just saying.
But here’s the best part.
For the privilege of paying a much higher millage rate than the county charges, the newly annexed residents of the Biscayne Corridor East Parcel can look forward to such “benefits” as (a) the parks they cannot access, (b) an additional code compliance officer, and (c) two, count ’em two, Biscayne Park Police Officers.
The Biscayne Park annexation application concedes (page 34) that all other services, including fire, water, sanitation, street lighting, construction and maintenance, will not be a benefit as these services are already provided by the state, the county, and – yep, you guessed it – the City of North Miami!
Just wow.
By far, though, here is the craziest part of this whole scheme.
As I mentioned above, the additional revenue of approximately $500,000.00 a year sounds like a boon. Except that the report does not take into consideration all the costs that will be incurred by annexing this property.
For one thing, a new code compliance officer will cost the Village approximately $25,000.00 in the first year.
The application also claims that the cost of hiring two new police officers will be $134,713.00 in the first year, or $67,356.50 each.
But, what the geniuses on the Biscayne Park City Commission didn’t account for is that those two new police officers are only on duty during one shift, and only four days a week. If they had thought this through, they would have understood that in Biscayne Park there are 2 twelve hour shifts per day and 7 days in a week. This means that there are 14 twelve hour shifts per week, or a total of 168 hours that must be staffed per week. If each police officer works 40 hours per week, then a total of 4.2 officers would need to be hired.
Not two.
I know…
Considering that police officers aren’t available in fractions, and considering that they also tend to take vacations, a more conservative estimate is that Biscayne Park would need to hire FIVE (which is not two) police officers to cover the annexed area. At a cost of $67,356.50 per officer, FIVE new hires would cost the Village of Biscayne Park a total of $336,782.50 per year.
Add the $25,000.00 for the cost of a new code compliance officer, and it will cost the Village of Biscayne Park $361,782.50 for the first year after annexing the property.
In reality, the Commission’s projected additional first year tax revenue of $500,000.00 is actually a net of $138,217.50.
And that’s only to pay for an additional six employees.
This price tag does not include the cost of new police vehicles, firearms, uniforms, equipment, insurance, training, certification, overtime, etc., that are incurred whenever new police officers are hired.
This also does not include any inevitable capital investments that the Village will be required to make, or the additional services it will have to provide to the whopping 430 residents they’ll have to drag, kicking and screaming, into their idyllic hamlet with a “small town atmosphere.”
In the final analysis, the approximate projected net gain of approximately $140,000.00 of revenue will be quickly eaten up by the myriad of unforeseen costs that the brilliant Biscayne Park Village Commissioners have not even considered.
In the end, this annexation will more than likely end up costing the Village way more than the revenue it will bring in.
Obviously, in their misguided lust for more land, the Biscayne Park Commission did not do their homework.
As an aside, and while we’re on the topic of the Biscayne Park Police Department…
When the application was submitted, the Village claimed there were 11 full time officers. As of today, there are only 9. Although Biscayne Park PD has a large roster of reserve officers (25 at the time the application was submitted), these are not paid police officers and they only fill in when needed for approximately 16 hours a month each.
But the craziest part of this story is that, although the Biscayne Park Police Department has never been accredited by the Commission for Florida Law Enforcement Accreditation, Inc. (unlike the North Miami Beach and North Miami Police Departments), the Biscayne Park Police cruisers sport “official” accreditation stickers.
But, hey. The Biscayne Park Police Department’s got this covered.
Just saying.
But, wait. There’s more.
A little known scandal has been brewing since late 2015, and one that the Biscayne Park Commissioners have been trying desperately to keep under the radar.
On January 21, 2016, with great fanfare, the Miami-Dade County Office of Historic Preservation issued a press release hailing the “re-opening and re-dedication of the historic log cabin in Biscayne Park.”
What the release didn’t reveal is that during the renovation of the “historic log cabin,” the police were called when workers discovered about 100 gel caps filled with mercury, which is a highly toxic material. The officer immediately called the Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Hazmat team to the scene, who contacted the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), which ordered the Village to perform an extensive cleanup. Sources have revealed that the City Manager at the time, Heidi Siegel, was furious that the officer did his job. I’m also told that only a week later the renovation work resumed, and that no city employees ever witnessed a cleanup crew at the site.
And, yes, public records requests have already been made to Miami-Dade Fire Rescue and the Florida DEP. There will be a follow up in future blogs.
Quite a few speakers came up to the podium to address the Commission. Residents of Biscayne Park were asking the Commission to approve, and North Miami residents, including Councilwoman Carol Keys, as well as representatives of several homeowners’ associations, were asking the Commission to reject the application for annexation.
Those against annexation were repeating much of the same sentiment that I’ve already mentioned here, including the lack of direct access from Biscayne Park to the proposed property. Another good point mentioned that, considering the millage rate would increase from 1.9 to 9.5, the municipality property taxes would potentially increase by an average of $38,000.00 per year for each property owner.
But, beyond all of that, here is the best part.
When Brian May, attorney for one of the property owners, made his presentation against annexation to the Commission, the entire room let out a collective gasp when he announced that the Village of Biscayne Park made an application to Miami-Dade County for an $800,000.00 grant to – get this! – BUILD A WALL ON ITS EASTERN BORDER ALONG THE RAILROAD TRACKS!
You could have heard a pin drop in the Chambers!
Of course, he was rebutted by a member of the Biscayne Park contingency, who flatly denied this was true.
EXCEPT IT’S ABSOLUTELY TRUE!
According to Part 2 of the 2016 Miami-Dade Local Mitigation Strategy, right smack in the center of the 19th page of the document, it clearly states that the Village of Biscayne Park requested the sum of $700,000.00 (and not $800,000.00) from the county to construct an “Eighteen Foot Tall Wall along FEC right‐of‐way,” the Project Description for which reads, “Reduces risk of damage to community by train wreck caused by sabotage or accident. With the potential for the new high speed rail this project is even more important.”
(For the record, this man also claimed that the North Miami City Council voted in favor of the Biscayne Park annexation, which is also patently untrue.)
The Biscayne Park Commissioners can deny the truth all they want, but public records are public records. The Village fully intends to build a wall!
And, no, Mexico’s not gonna pay for it.
In the final analysis, Biscayne Park’s application for annexation violates almost all of the criteria for annexation, including, and especially that it would create an undue hardship on the residents of North Miami.
At Tuesday’s Miami-Dade County Commissioner meeting, Sally Heyman desperately grasped at straws to justify approving this application.
She chastised the residents of North Miami for wanting to protect their own interests.
She also went on to rudely berate the City of North Miami for even challenging the proposed annexation by stating that the subject property does not belong to North Miami and well, basically, it’s none of their business.
The fact that she represents that section of North Miami that would be most negatively affected by the annexation was obviously of no importance to her.
Sally Heyman tried to claim that the subject property was contiguous to Biscayne Park, and tried to use the fact that the Florida East Coast Railway cuts through North Miami.
Her argument was invalid because throughout the City of North Miami there are four railway crossings over the tracks.
If this annexation were to be approved, Biscayne Park would have ZERO crossings across the track from east to west.
DUH!
Sally Heyman also made the ridiculous argument that the tax increase on the multi-family properties in the subject area would not affect the rent paid by residents. If the owners of these investment properties are taxed at a higher rate, they will necessarily raise rents to their tenants in order to cut their losses. That’s simple Economics 101.
Throughout her speech in support of the application, Sally Heyman gushed over all the public speakers from Biscayne Park. At the same time, she scolded the visitors from North Miami for objecting, and lectured that “it really needs to be understood” that the subject property did not belong to them. She also attempted to smack down every valid argument made by the opposition with patently disingenuous rebuttals.
It’s quite obvious that the ultimate goal of Sally Heyman, and probably all of the Miami-Dade Commissioners, is to get rid of the responsibility of servicing as much county property as possible. Even though the county still receives its share of tax revenue on all properties, the more land it can parcel out by way of annexation or municipal incorporation, the less the county has to spend providing services to those residents who live in those areas. While the quality of city services is almost always worth the extra taxation, not all residents can afford to pay more.
But, what the hell. If Sally can help Biscayne Park dig its way out of its self-inflicted financial woes, it makes no difference to her if it’s on the backs of the taxpayers.
None of this is to suggest that annexation is necessarily a bad thing. There are far too many areas of unincorporated Miami-Dade County that are under-served by the bloated and fiscally irresponsible bureaucracy that the county has become. There is too much wasteful spending on everything from its top heavy administration to the non-essential workforce hiring by nepotism, not to mention the frivolous and self-serving spending habits of the Commissioners themselves.
Most of the incorporated municipalities in Miami-Dade County have a tight rein on public spending, Opa-locka notwithstanding, of course. Plus, residents of cities have a much stronger voice when it comes to being in control of their government and forcing City Hall to be responsive to their needs.
With respect to this particular parcel of land, if it’s going to be annexed at all, the only logical choice would be by the City of North Miami. And that’s assuming, of course, if it chooses to do so. North Miami could easily afford to absorb this parcel with an absolute minimum of expense and at little or no economic hardship or inconvenience to the residents of North Miami.
At hour 3:35 of the Commission meeting, Sally made a motion to approve the Village of Biscayne Park’s request for annexation. When Chairman Monestime asked for a second on her motion, the item died for lack of one.
Bitch.
Slap.
‘Nuff said.
Stephanie
Steph. You continue to be an immensely valuable force in our local community. One or two more like you and people might start trusting government more.
Thank you, Dr. Jacob. Considering I seem to be exposing all that’s wrong with government, I’m not sure I’m fostering trust. But I appreciate your support!
On the contrary Jacob, Stephanie uncovers all the backroom deals and lets the public know what’s really going on. When she exposes the corrupt elected officals and appointed employees who lie to the public, to me its just the tip of the iceberg. I certainly don’t trust them more when I read about blogs like this. Sally Heymen is a great example of an elected offical who would sell her constituents out to curry the favor of Biscayne Park officials the next time she runs for office. She calculated those living in the proposed annex area are renters who don’t vote so they are no use to her.
NO ONE should trust government and give them a free pass on anything. Money and power corrupt corruptable people. Its up to each and every resident to oversee their government and take an active part in the what goes on at city and county hall. Stephanie is certainly doing more than her part to expose what goes on.
Outstanding job of research and reporting, Steph. You just can’t make this stuff up.
Which is why I could never write fiction. The truth is way stranger, and infinitely more entertaining.
Thanks for the compliment. Coming from you, that really means so much!
Excellant blog Steph. This is a great example of why almost all remaining proposed annexations are in trouble. Your breakdown of employee costs is exactly why the proposed budgets for annexations are underestimated when it comes to the costs involved. Even the numbers you used (based upon Biscayne Parks numbers) is unrealistic. You can’t employ a full time code enforcement officer for $25,000 a year, including a car, pesnion, insurance, etc. Same for the police officers. The City of NMB budgets $155,000 per police officer. That number includes the car, computer, gun, training, uniform, insurance vacation and sick time, and of course the expensive pension costs.
While its true there are benefits to living in some cities that have extreme property tax revenues such as the coastal cities, it’s not worth the cost in extra property taxes in many of the remaining cities. Sweetwater is near bankrupcy, Opa-Locka already is. North Miami has had its issues with its former elected officals and senior employees that costs the residents millions. Miami Gardens has raised its property taxes almost four-fold in its ten years of existance. To top it all off, the taxpayers of the City of NMB are still paying Sally Heyman’s lifetime healthcare insurance costs even though she was only a councilperson there for seven years.
One other reason why many of the County Commissioners are FOR incorporation is becasue they are now term-limited and need a place to run for office once they are done with the County Commission.
Your article highlighted many of the reasons why futher incorporation in Miami-Dade County is a bad idea for most residents.
Excellent! If the Miami Herald and Sun Sentinal had journalists like you, half the stuff you write about would never occur. Hey Miami Herald, Sun Sentinal…..are you listening???
I have a response for you, and it’s likely to be too long to fit in your comment section. What would you like me to do about that?
Fred Jonas
Commissioner, BP
You can email me if you wish.
I don’t have your e-mail address.
I sent you an email.
Charlotte Greenbarg says “you can’t make this stuff up.” Hmm.
Steph, I’m not sure which is the bigger problem for someone wanting to respond to you. It’s either the smothering avalanche of verbiage, or the self-contradicting and incorrect things you say.
By the way, where were you sitting at the meeting you described? I didn’t see you.
One of your early stated or alleged concerns was how inconvenient it would be for police to get from what we like to call “historic Biscayne Park (BP)” to the annexation area. But then, you correctly note our intention to hire extra police to monitor there. So if we hire extra police, just for there, then there’s no need for police to rush from here to there. Alternatively, if you thought we would be relying on the police we already have here to serve that area, then we wouldn’t be hiring extra. So choose which complaint you want to make– the cost of hiring extra, or the inconvenience of having to travel– but don’t choose both. It’s disingenuous.
Also, you start out on a track of calculating how much it would cost to hire two officers (which you then expand to five), but you fail to take into account two things, one of which you later indicate you already know (so it’s unclear why you weren’t more honest in including it). First, crime there is very low, and there is no need for us to hire two extra officers per shift. You might not have known about that. What you do know is that we also rely on reserves (400 hours a month, by your calculation!), whom we don’t pay. So you want to downshift your estimation of the cost. Or you should want to downshift it, if your goal is the honesty and completeness people like Allan Jacob, Barry S., Charlotte Greenbarg, and East of the Tracks imagine they can expect from you.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and just assume you did incomplete research, and not that you were being dishonest, about the accounting. Math doesn’t have to be as hard as you claim, but you do have to use all the parts of the equation. You somehow quote “$500K” as the expected tax revenue for the first year. If we annexed this year, the ad valorem revenue would be $663K. It’s not possible to estimate non ad valorem revenues, but in “historic BP,” they’re about 1/3 of our revenue. Ad valorem is about 1/2 of our revenue. Non ad valorem is produced by things like electric and communications bills, which are typically much higher for commercial and industrial usage than they are for residential, so maybe it’s a good deal more. But don’t leave it out. It’s significant and important.
You decry what you want to imply is a tax increase from 1.9 mills to 9.7 mills. Wow, that sounds like a huge increase, a quintupling of the ad valorem tax paid. Except it’s not true. Ad valorem taxes are billed in four independent portions, of which three are substantial. The portions paid to the County and to the School Board are the same for everyone. Only the portion paid to the municipality is different. It is that part that is 1.9 mills now for the area in question, and would be 9.7, if we annexed. But if we didn’t annex, CNM would like very much to do so. You seem to think this makes much more sense, somehow. You recommend it. (Although it’s not clear why, if you think annexation is a losing proposition, which you also state.) But CNM’s millage is around 9.2, where ours is 9.7. So I don’t think you’re offering anything of meaningful value, when you suggest it would be better for the residents and property owners there to be annexed by CNM instead.
If your comments about the log cabin renovation were not a completely irrelevant non sequitur, please tell me what the connection was.
As best I have been able to determine, your assertions about BP’s asking someone for $700K or $800K for a wall along the tracks are wrong. I am not familiar with the document you cite, and if someone inserted a wish like that somewhere, it was most likely as some sort of place holder. We have no such ambition. When I ran for office three years ago, I had a platform plank about wanting such a wall, to reduce noise and criminal intrusion. It seemed I was the only one who was interested, and I haven’t even pursued talking about it since then.
Carol Keys made a number of wrong statements, and even CNM’s own attorney(!) had to correct her. She seemed to have been on some sort of rogue mission. Except for the people wearing the red tee shirts. You have somehow decided they were a “slew of…residents from the affected apartment buildings,” but that doesn’t appear to be true. They seem to have been unconnected to any of this, and they appear to have been paid to show up and wear the shirts. One of the BP contingent asked one of them what their message was, and the person she asked said he was there to “save the parks.” There had been many earlier speakers who wanted the County to devote more money to its parks, as part of the TRIM discussion that preceded us, and it seems the stooge with the red tee shirt assumed he must have been part of that. Nope, unconnected. Go back to sleep.
You could say CNM “voted [4-1] in favor of the BP annexation,” or you could say they voted 4-1 to withdraw their own application, in deference to BP. It’s the same thing. What do you think happened or didn’t happen?
“Complement” is the right word. It represents our diversifying our tax base, which everyone recommends, and it allows us to do it without changing the character of “historic (residential) BP.” It creates for us a separate zone, without our having to compromise the feel of “historic BP.” You live in CNMB, which is a large municipality that has lots of non-residential components. If you don’t work in CNMB, then wherever you work has a non-residential component. You have no idea how it handicaps a municipality that has no commercial component, and has comparatively friendly property values. The municipalities that can get away with not having commercial components, like Indian Creek Village and Golden Beach, have very high property values, so even more relaxed millages produce abundant revenues. By the way, if you think the presence of a separating barrier should disqualify municipal connection, are you asking CNMB to give up Eastern Shores? Or CNM to give up all of itself that’s east of the train track?
You refer almost in passing, to BP’s “dire financial straights(sic)” (it’s straits), and later, you take a gratuitous swipe, with your “If Sally can help Biscayne Park out of its self-inflicted financial woes, it makes no difference to her if it’s on the backs of the taxpayers.” But what reason do you have to be so unsympathetic? How have you determined that BP’s financial woes are “self-inflicted?” Or that they’re unworthy of being addressed? What are BP’s customary municipal responsibilities, and to what extent could they be met, or were ever met? Has BP been chronically hampered by the lack of a commercial component? What would you advise the Village to do about this? Do you even care? All public/municipal financial responsibilities are resolved on the backs of taxpayers. You don’t know that? It’s all taxes and fees of one sort or another (property tax, income tax, sales tax, fines, etc). Whether you want the public sector to care for the poor, provide public education, fix the streets, provide police, fight fires, or prosecute a war, the money all comes from “the backs of taxpayers.”
Sally Heyman has been generous to and supportive of both BP and CNM regarding annexation. She asked CNM to withdraw its application for this particular parcel, and in exchange, she fully supported CNM’s application to annex a nearby parcel. You have no valid criticism of Sally Heyman.
“Rejecting” this application from BP means discussing it and showing why it’s faulty, or inconsiderate of some population of people. It does not mean that six County Commissioners who said they agreed with Sally Heyman then mysteriously refuse to second her motion. Clearly, something affected them, and you have made no effort to discover what it was.
Do much better next time you want to comment on an issue that has nothing to do with you.
Fred Jonas
Commissioner, Biscayne Park
Fred, Fred, Fred. I hope you feel better now that you got that off your chest. As for your critique about my misspelling of “dire straits,” so noted.
Let me first address your comments about the number of police officers that will be needed. You contradicted yourself when you said that the newly hired police will not have to “rush from here to there” because of your low crime rate. However, if you consider the actual crime rate in the area you propose to annex, it is considerably higher than that in your current village limits. I do not have the actual crime rate at this moment, and I certainly will not venture a guess; however, I have been told by several police officers that this is the case. I will assume that the newly hired police officers will necessarily have to transport prisoners from the east side to your police department, and will therefore, indeed need to travel “from here to there.”
I see you don’t have a comment about your police department’s sporting an accreditation sticker on its vehicles despite the fact they have never been accredited by the Commission for Florida Law Enforcement Accreditation. I guess fraud is of no consequence to you.
No comment on your calculations re proposed ad valorem revenue, as I was relying on comments made by speakers while watching the recorded meeting on my computer screen. And, no, I was not present, but I can assure you, I had the best seat in the house, as well as the ability to rewind, which enabled me to confirm comments that were made.
I will note here that when they called your name to speak, you were not present, either. I’m not sure why you even attacked me for not being physically present when you were also gone by that point.
As for the proposed wall, I obtained the document that I linked to on my blog directly from the Miami Dade County government website. It is a public record. I do, however, understand your aversion to public records, considering the current scandal involving a plethora of DNC emails that were just published by Wikileaks that plenty of people are now wishing had never surfaced. Whether you like it or not, public records are forever.
You may not have applied for that $700,000.00 grant to build an 18 foot wall personally, but SOMEONE in Biscayne Park sure did. Perhaps a little more transparency in your own government is in order.
I will not respond to your comment about North Miami Councilwoman Carol Keys until I interview her for her side of the story, including your accusations about the City Attorney and Council votes.
I do not live in the City of North Miami Beach any longer, but I do know that not having commercial properties “handicaps a municipality.” Fortunately, NMB has plenty. Like Biscayne Park, both the Village of Indian Creek and the Town of Golden Beach rely only on private property tax revenues to support their governments. Like Biscayne Park, they chose to NOT have commercial properties. Unlike Biscayne Park, those municipalities can afford to be self-supporting. I’m not sure what your point was, but for the record, I am perfectly aware of the benefits of commercial property.
Furthermore, while the railroad track does, in fact, separate east from west, there are three access points across the track. North Miami has four. Under your proposal, Biscayne Park will have zero.
As such, I stand by my opinion that Biscayne’s financial problems are self-inflicted. I never said these problems are not worthy of being addressed. My opinion is that annexing an inaccessible parcel of land, across a railroad track with no access points, and the necessity of having to travel through North Miami and/or Miami-Dade County in order to be accessible to your residents was not the brightest solution. Rezoning your municipality to include commercial property within your borders, or annexing other properties that are contiguous to your village might be a better idea. You have a right to attempt to accomplish whatever you deem best for your residents. By the same token, I have a right to my opinion of the actions your government takes. Regardless of whether or not you agree with me does not negate the fact that the First Amendment of the Constitution allows me to criticize the government, including yours.
Likewise, your comment that I have no valid criticism of Sally Heyman is also your opinion. Whether or not you agree with my opinion of her does not negate the validity of my criticism. Again, you are entitled to your opinion that mine is not valid, but that doesn’t make yours right.
And lastly, your comment that “six County Commissioners who said they agreed with Sally Heyman then mysteriously refused to second her motion,” is curious indeed.
That this smacks of Sunshine Law violations may not concern you, but if true, there is definitely at least the appearance of impropriety. Since you are also an elected official, it should very much concern you.
By the same token, your insinuation that “something affected them” because none of the Commissioners seconded Sally’s motion, not only smacks of impropriety, but also conspiracy.
I would tread lightly there.
I brought up your fiasco about the log cabin contamination for two reasons. One, it was impossible to resist. And secondly, I decided to throw it out there as a teaser for future blog posts once my research is complete.
Just saying.
And, finally, your admonition for me to “do better next time” when I blog about what you believe is none of my business, again … your opinion. By now, as you can see, I have as much use for your opinion as you have for mine. So there’s that.
I realize you take great pleasure in trying to berate and belittle me, as you did in our personal email correspondences prior to your posting your comment. If that rant made you feel better about yourself, I’m only too happy to be of service.
Since you brought up the topic of honesty, and accused me being dishonest, I urge you to be honest here as well. You should admit that you have a very personal reason for your intense dislike of me. And because you felt it necessary to attack me so publicly, no one would blame me for not taking the high road, and retaliate to embarrass you. However, I choose not to do so because you’re still not that important.
And, no, I’m still not available.
But thank you for sharing and for reading my blog.
Oy, Steph,
You don’t have data, and you won’t venture a guess about the crime rate, but then you venture a completely uninformed guess? If you’re telling me not to bother advising you to do better, because you’re incapable of it, I got it.
No, I don’t have a comment about accreditation of our police department. You, however, are never without a comment/crack, and that comment is always an accusation. “Fraud,” this time, is it? Have a nice day/life?
It’s slightly late for you to admit you have “no comment” about the revenues, but I guess thanks for admitting it. Too bad you couldn’t have come to that realization before you decided to let your fingers fly. Shoot first, and ask questions later?
No, I waited as long as I could. They told us we’d be taken “before lunch,” but I couldn’t wait any longer. I’m surprised that with the “best seat in the house,” and the availability of endless instant replay, you didn’t hear a few people tell Carol Keys that her facts were wrong. Maybe that was during your own lunch breaks.
You make some interesting “observations” and suppositions about BP. You’ve decided what we could or should have done for our fiscal selves. And you thought it would be of some value to share your uninformed opinions with the public. This might be a good time for me to remind you how you and I “met.” One of BP’s then Commissioners, Bryan Cooper, had taken the liberty to express his opinion on what CNMB should do about a proposed development bordering Greynolds Park. You, properly, in my opinion, took Cooper to task, pointing out to him that what CNMB did about this tract was none of his business. You thought, frankly, that he should butt out. I’m going to give you the same advice– butt out– for the same reason– it’s none of your business. Now you might counter that you are a self-styled watchdog of the public, and you feel you have a right to make such things your business. Cooper would have said a version of the same thing. He considered himself to be a strong environmental advocate, and he saw the development in question as a threat to available drinking water for this area, not just for the immediate neighborhood. But you stuck to your guns– butt out, Cooper– and I’m sticking to mine– butt out, Stephanie. Especially as it becomes increasingly clear you don’t know what you’re talking about, your “research” is spotty, and all you’re offering is your admitted opinion.
In fact, once we realize you’re on your own, “facts”-wise, and all you’re really offering is your cranky opinion, pretty much all of your post is disqualified.
Oh, yes, the best defense is a good offense, indeed. If I’ve pointed out to you something of which you were ineptly not aware regarding the County Commission, your best retort is to accuse someone of a Sunshine violation. That’s good, Steph. Does it make you feel almost valid?
Thanks for confirming that your slobbering about the log cabin was only gratuitous, intended to mark territory for later reference. (There seem to be many dog references here, including in your own reference to “bitch.” I’m not sure what that’s about.)
Really, you publicly refer to what you seem almost to understand was “personal…correspondence?” Wow, you’re really out of control. No offense, but it has a very pathetic quality to it.
I would not be being honest, if I did not admit, as you say, that I don’t like you. I recognized your problems early on, but I still imagined, as do some of your readers, that you were at least honest. I wouldn’t say I liked you, exactly, but I thought you had value. Once I found out you’re not honest, and you turned your bile on me, because I disagreed with you about some topic in your blog, I no longer liked you nor had any tolerance for you. As I wrote to you privately last night, I know you well enough to know no one disagrees with you, and I couldn’t now, without unleashing your wrath. So I guess go for it. It seems to be all you have.
You have not disputed one fact that I asserted, including the public record about the wall.
By “personal correspondence,” I was referring to the several emails we exchanged late last night, in which you continued to berate me.
I did not, as you suggested, turn my “bile” on you. In fact, I made it a point to be extremely civil in my response in order to defend my own opinion.
You, on the other hand, have resorted to name calling and more abusive attacks.
It’s quite apparent you have no interest in a civil discourse.
I rest my case.
I hope you enjoyed your rant. But, again, thank you so much for sharing and for reading my blog.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Wow Fred, that had to be one of the longest correspondences I’ve ever read that states absolutely NOTHING! Unlike you, one thing about Stephanie is that she checks her facts and is 99.44% right on the money.
You could be the poster child for the unincorporation movement that looks at politicians like you as exactly the reason they want to remain unincorporated.
Where to start? The very fact that BP cannot survive on its own generated revenues at the highest property tax rate in Miami-Dade County and the highest rate allowed by the State says volumes about your own fiscal responsibility and your current town management. For over 70 years, the former BP management seemed to be able to balance the books on whatever revenue it took in, yet, under your “leadership” they can’t seem to do it now. You can now boast that you helped run it right into the ground!
Maybe its because the cost of services you believe you are paying for are real numbers, yet at the end of the year you cannot balance your budget. Maybe its because there isn’t a sworn police officer in all of MD County whose cost of employment is only $67,000+ per year. When the cost of the car, laptop, gun, uniform, vacation, sick leave, salary, pension, training and supervision are added in, the cost is well over $100,000 per year. The City of NMB budgets $155,000 per police officer per year. Please tell me where you can hire a certified code enforcement officer with a car and benefits for $25,000 per year? Pure fantasy on the part of whoever came up with that number. The two proposed police officers, under your budget number, could only work 40 hrs per week. Who will cover the remaining 88 hours in the rest of the week or when they call in sick or go on vacation? Oh, I forgot, the “free” police officers driving their own personal cars will, right? You lying Bas@!%
Why would residents of ANY unincorporated areas want to be annexed with absolutely NO increase in services, in fact, in BP’s scenario, an actual decrease in police protection. Adding in the fact that these annexed residents get to have their property tax millage raised from 1.92 to 9.75 mils reminds me of the movie “One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest” and you playing the part of Nurse Ratchet.
Fred, if you REALLY want to complement your tax base with commercial property, you should consider unincorporation of your village and ditch your Mayberry lifestyle. Going back to being unicorporated would open up a whole new world of County services that BP cannot afford, like the ability of having your residents have access to the County’s recycling station located in beautiful unincorporated Biscayne Gardens. Your residents would have 7 day a week access to the facility where they can drop off their yard waste, old furniture, mattresses, tires, white goods, used motor oil, computer equipment, old swing sets and bicycles, in fact, almost anything that isn’t hazardous. Additionally, through economies of scale, your residents would pay much less for services and receive enhanced police protection as a bonus. This goes right to your point of “all taxes are on the backs of taxpayers”. So if BP cannot balance its budget “on the backs of its current taxpayers” then unincorporation would be a much better option and relieve their aching backs.
The added bonus to the residents of BP would be that they would get rid of lying, misrepresenting, and expensive do-nothing politicians like you and eliminate the unnecessary extra level of bureaucracy you and your colleagues represent that they absolutely do not need nor gain any benefit.
But, but … FACTS! They HURTS! Make it stop!
Thank you so much for your comments, and adding information about all the benefits of unincorporation. You do realize that in Biscayne Park it will never happen. The fact that a scant half square mile of real estate was even incorporated in the first place was so that self-empowered mini dictocrats could claim relevance in their lives. It’s laughable that Jonas compares his bush league village to Indian Creek and Golden Beach in order to justify it’s existence. You made an interesting point by noticing that Biscayne Park’s financial troubles have only gotten worse under the current administration. And, of course, they want everyone else in the county to pay for their irresponsibility. Typical!
Taxed to Death, I’m sorry you feel taxed to death. You write as if you were a BP resident, so I’ll respond to you as if you are. By the way, it does not enhance your effort to make a point if you endeavor to be as obnoxious as Stephanie Kienzle. And you shouldn’t sink to her level, because you actually do make some points worth discussing.
As best I understand you, you seem to make three points that I think you intend to be related to each other. One is that BP was successfully run until recent years. The second is that BP is not successfully run now. And the third is that BP should give up the ghost, and unincorporate itself. Although if you think your first point is true, you could then have suggested addressing your second point, so that you would not have needed your third point. But you see it as you see it.
Was BP ever successfully run? (And should it ever have been allowed to incorporate in the first place?) No. (Debatable. But what’s done is done, and it does little good to criticize what happened 85 years ago.) The Park always had meager income, and it allowed itself insidiously to decline. There was lots of improvement and maintenance that never happened. Last year’s log cabin renovation project was as comprehensive, and expensive, as it was, because no one had previously done anything that needed doing. Presumably, they didn’t want to spend the money (they didn’t have). Our medians are not developed for the same reason. Until 2006, all Village functions were overseen by elected Commissioners, none of whom necessarily had relevant expertise, or even ability. Little constructive was going on here, and we had a number of employees who got paid to do little or nothing. The Village was not really a going concern, and before 2005, there was a resident-composed Charter Review Committee that suggested, mercifully, that we needed to stop the charade, and hire professional management. They made that suggestion to the then Commission, which agreed. The matter was submitted to the public by referendum, and the residents at large also agreed. So we got professional management. That has tightened up and streamlined Village functioning considerably, and it allowed us to do what we could never do, or even consider doing, before. We are a much better entity now. So I think you’re very wrong to imagine that the Village was in any way successful before. If you know something I don’t know, please reveal what it is.
In your fourth paragraph, you highlight a few problems. One of them is your quote of Stephanie, who specializes in getting things wrong, that the Village would hire a Code Compliance officer for $25K. It was a part time Code Compliance officer. That’s why we projected $25K. As for the police, you have correctly illustrated the problem. CNMB can afford to pay $155K, and we can’t. Again, you can approach that any way you like, including declaring us a dead-in-the-water failure, or, if you were differently disposed, you could allow your correct understanding to help you see why we want to annex. The choice is yours. But unless you confirm you live in BP, I will take the liberty of helping solve our problems without worrying that you disapprove. If I was concerned about whether you approve, we would have different conversation, which we’ll come to shortly.
It is completely unclear to me why you somehow think you concluded that there would be no increase in services to the annexation area. Of course there would. Our police coverage is quicker responding and more community-oriented than is that of the County coverage. Even if we don’t pay as well. Also, there is a sense of community that does not come with being unincorporated county. It might intrigue you to know that one of the large apartment complexes in this area already loosely describes its location as “Biscayne Park.” They already want to belong. They want others to think they do. Why would anyone want somewhat better police response, and a sense of belonging? I don’t know. Some people just do. And everyone pays for what he or she gets. Also, don’t fall into the trap Stephanie thinks she set for you, by being willing to imagine the ad valorem tax quintuples. It doesn’t. Stephanie just likes to say that, because the person who put her onto this says it, and she likes to upset people anyway. But it isn’t true. The other advantage of belonging to a locality, other than the County, is that residents of the area have a more meaningful vote about what happens. Maybe some people like to have a vote, and say, too.
Now, for your final point. Former Commissioner Bryan Cooper, among a couple of others, had the same idea. He thought is was a good idea, and maybe you do, too. Thus far, you’re both outvoted, but maybe some day, you’ll prevail. Cooper’s fantasy was that if we lower our taxes enough, and drive ourselves deeply enough into failure, we’ll have to declare ourselves a dead municipality, and, according to Cooper’s fantasy life, we would be absorbed by Miami Shores. There are a few problems with this. Probably the main problem is that Miami Shores has no interest in absorbing us. We’d be the same fiscal failure to them that we are to ourselves. Without a commercial component, we’re too limited. (That’s why we want to annex. It’s why almost all municipalities have diversified tax bases, as with the inclusion of commercial components. Please say you really do understand this.) Second, even if MSV did absorb us, their ad valorem tax rate is very little lower than ours, so it wouldn’t help people like you, who already reportedly feel “taxed to death.” Third, even if MSV did absorb us, and even if we were happy to be able to pay even slightly less than we do now, their Codes are more restrictive than are ours, so the people who complain about being put upon by the Codes (as Cooper did; you, too?) would wind up being even more put upon. It was a dumb fantasy, and it wouldn’t really have accomplished anything anyway.
By the way, if you do live in BP, and you’re still complaining about the taxes, you should know that BP has traditionally comparatively low property values (lower than in MSV, for example), so that even a high millage does not translate into a high tax bill for many Village homeowners.
Your other suggestion, which has no current relevance, was that BP should never have incorporated in the first place. Maybe you’re right. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what the considerations were. And I don’t know why the State of Florida agreed it was a good idea. If you want to be right, you can be right. So now, you want us to unincorporate? And revert to the County? Start a movement. So far, I think you won’t have the community support, but maybe you can cultivate it. I’m on your side in one way. Some of my BP neighbors and I started a campaign a few years ago, to attach our local expensive and non-productive elections to the general election. We went door to door, handed out flyers, talked to people, and found that many others agreed with us. So now, we’re that much less separate from the County and the State. If you want to go further, start your own campaign.
Finally, your friend Stephanie Kienzle is nowhere near as accurate (or honest) as you like to tell yourself. Also, it’s OK not to call someone a lying bastard, just because you disagree with him, or he disagrees with you. I haven’t told you anything that wasn’t true, or, even if you think something I said isn’t true, I believe everything I said to be true. So accuse me of being mistaken, if you think I am. But don’t accuse me of being a liar. I’m not.
Dude, when you find yourself in a hole, it’s best to stop digging. Seriously. You have your own blog on which to post your nonsense for anyone dumb enough to believe you. You can go back to the children’s table now and leave the grownups alone. Mmmmkay?
Let me try again to respond to your math issues. You’ve explained away the cost of the Code Enforcement Officer by changing his schedule from a full time employee to a part time one. As for the cost of your police officers, all police officers in MD County make within a few thousand dollars of each other. The PBA ensures that happens. There are NO full-time certified police officers in MD County that have a cost to their employer of less than $100,000 when all support costs are added in. In addtion to the take home cars, I’ve already outlined all the other expenses involved in hiring a full time, certified police officer.
Even though you still have not explained the lack of police coverage for the area you claim would be better protected by BP than what the County currently provides, what about the other services that BP would be required to maintain, such as road repair, swale maintenance and other functions the County currently provides? While you are attempting to ease the taxpayer burden on BP’s residents through the annexation process, what about the excess burden of increased taxes and poor managment BP is placing on those businesses and residents of the area BP wants to annex? I guess their burden doesn’t count. BP could care less about changing the way of life of those residents who are doing just fine being left alone and away from village idiots.
It’s also apparent you’ve never had to call 911 outside of BP to check the response times of MDPD which is one of the quickest in the County. Check the response times and you will re-think your statement.
Fred, I can guarantee you one thing, and if I had the energy to do it, I could certainly go door to door and visit all 3000 of our residents and after explaining the financial issues the residents of BP now face, I could certainly gather enough petition signatures to have a vote on dis-incorporation. You’d be surprised how many of our BP residents are not excited about having yet more taxes levied on them in order to fill in the budget hole created by poor managment decisions. When its explained to them how much their property taxes would go down if BP went back to being a part of the County, they get real interested in the prospect of signing the petition. Same with the residents of the areas outisde BP, only one out of ten is interested in being incorporated, and then, only becasue they have no idea about the costs of incorporation. We live those costs everyday in BP.
WTF was that all about?
Dear Stephanie,
You’re kind of an ass.
While the Biscayne Park annexation plan certainly had its downsides in addition to its upsides, it was by no means the disaster you make it out to be.
Furthermore, a lot of people worked very hard over a number of years to put this plan together. They did it in good faith and for the long term benefit of the village.
The glee you seem to take in writing about the failure of the plan is totally unwarranted and makes you look bad.
There is certainly a very necessary roll for reporters and bloggers who look into local government and make sure the general public is aware of what elected officials are up to, exposing anything nefarious.
In this case, however, you did not uncover anything remotely corrupt or untoward; the case was well-publicized. If it lost on it’s own merit, so be it, but your exuberant piling on after the fact is shameful.
To reiterate, you’re kind of an ass.
Thank you for sharing. And thanks for the name calling. That always endears people and opens their minds to new ideas.
Hey Zest, get over it. Defeating an annexation in which the residents and business of the proposed annexed area did not have a voice in the annexation process is certainly worth a whole lot of “glee”, especially by those residents and business owners. You again explained the one-sdied view that “They did it in good faith and for the long term benefit of the village.” as you put it at the expense of those who wanted to be left alone and not annexed. What about those people Zest? It appears that you are the “ASS”.
Phineas Zest,
My reflex is to agree with you: “If [BP’s annexation application] lost on its own merit, so be it.” I might disagree that the application had no merit, but I couldn’t disagree with the process, assuming it was a fair one. It’s not at all clear that’s what happened. BP had a paid firm that was to manage and oversee the effort. Representatives of that firm had met with County Commissioners, and had concluded that seven of the 12 Commissioners were disposed in favor of BP’s application. Stephanie, or anyone else, can raise doubts or questions as to the reliability of this conclusion, and infer anything she likes about what getting feedback like this implies, but this was the conclusion. Sally Heyman, the County Commissioner for the district that includes BP, made a motion at the Commission meeting to approve the application. Not only did the Chair of the County Commission do what he could to derail and distract from this Agenda item, but once the Commission had to confront and deal with Commissioner Heyman’s motion, it did so by failing to provide a second. So the motion died. The question is what happened to six other County Commissioners to convert them from being in favor to not even wanting the matter discussed. Obviously, something happened. Unless Stephanie or anyone else wants to say County Commissioners lied to our lobbyist, or our lobbyist lied to us, or I’m lying to you. Stephanie seems likely to be delighted to choose any or all of those. But the question is, what if no one lied. What if six County Commissioners changed their minds suddenly, and did not even want the matter to be up for discussion? What if the application did not lose on its merit, or lack thereof? What if it was sabotaged? That’s the problem.
My issue is primarily with the tone and reporting of this blog post.
Whether or not BP should have been able to annex the area in question is certainly open to debate and I would expect an open, honest and fair assessment of all the issues involved.
This blog post, however, is nothing of the sort. There are many reasons why annexing the area is a worthwhile goal for all parties, but these points are disregarded completely.
Furthermore, Stephanie seems to think the whole idea was incredibly crazy and and stupid and seems to take great joy in dancing on the grave of the BP annexation application. She further implies the BP commission is equally crazy and stupid for putting forth this idea to begin with. Then she implies that Sally Heyman is either stupid or corrupt for going along with it.
I just don’t understand the level of condescension and derision from the author for a reasonable, if perhaps flawed, plan from a small village to ensure fiscal stability.
Stephanie, it’s your blog and you are certainly entitled to do whatever you want with it. However, real people put forth real effort in order to attempt to improve their community. Nothing nefarious or underhanded was done here. In jumping all over this issue like you just uncovered the Watergate tapes is more than a little extreme.
Also, you writing seems to be at an 10th grade level at best.
Mr. Zest, you are apparently new to the blog. I’m sorry your opinion of my writing is “at an [sic] 10th grade level at best.” Perhaps you should take the time to see some of my more serious posts, which are actually geared to a higher level of intelligence and sophistication of the targeted audience. The topic of misplaced and/or lost public records, as well as the absolute denial of same, by the commissioners of Biscayne Park, did not warrant my infinitely more educated style of writing. In other words, I had to dumb this one down.
But again, thank you for reading my blog.
Dear P.Z.
Please understand that Stephanie is the owner of this webiste column. Stephanie is a fair and equal opprotunity journalist who not only allows disenting viewpoints, but she even publishes the words of people who insult her or her contributors. The very fact that she allows you, Jonas, and anyone else to write endless diatribe, and publish it, in direct contrast to what is allowed at any BP village meeting. Free and open speech is her trademark.
Stephanie is very accurate with her facts and figures and writes in a humorous way that just drives pretender politicians nuts. She calls it like she sees it and her blog is commented on by almost everyone in the political circles of the surrounding communities. I’v even heard a politician state he won’t touch a controversial issue because he was afraid it would apprear the next day in Stephanies blog. The issue in question was the award of a grant to a questionable organization that later turned out to be a bogus shell. So you can see how Steph’s blog has opened the eyes of the public while at the same time reducing corruption by exposing it to sunshine.
Zest Meister, you want compassion from the readers of this column due to the “plan from a small village to ensure fiscal stability” …of course, at the expense of those in the annex area who you apparently could care less about. If you really want to improve our community as you state “real people put forth real effort in order to attempt to improve their community” those same people should work to unincorporate us and really do us a favor.
I’ll tell you what happened to the lack of support by other Commissioners. They were recently advised of all the failed incorporation and annexation proposals that unincorporated residents from around the County voted against or came out in force opposed to. The commissioner’s aides have been overwhelmed by irate residents of these unincorporated areas opposing any move to add another layer of bureacracy to their tax bills. These residents have read the paper everyday in which yet another local municiple government is in financial distress. Opa-Locka, Sweetwater, Biscayne Park, and malfesance in North Miami, Homestead, Miami, and other municipalities. Why in the world would people want to be annexed or incorporated when there is almost no benefit? The Commissioners, who want to be re-elected, have heard the message from the electorate. and kept their silence. Apparently, you haven’t gotten the word yet.
Phineas Zest,
It was most unfortunate that the BP matter never got the fair hearing it very much deserved, if for no other reason, the one you state: many people worked hard (and spent money) to prepare a perfectly good case. Would it have won on its merits? In one sense, we’ll never know. But in another sense, if it’s true, and I have no reason to doubt it, that seven County Commissioners were disposed in favor of it, then it seems likely it would have prevailed.
As for Stephanie– and I realize this was your main point– she’s always like that. It’s why I don’t read her blog any more, except someone directed me to this post. “Kind of?” And she pulls nonsense which is very typical of her: she blames others for her bad attitude and disgraceful way of presenting a topic. In this case, she asks you to imagine she can take a higher road (she can’t), and she says she only had to “dumb down” this post for what she seems to describe as dumb people. She seems either to have no insight or no self-control. Even in her idiotic and pathetic response to you, you can see she pounces on a simple typo, in the interest of insulting you.
But as I say, accept her invitation to explore her blog, and you’ll see this is her one and only way of communicating. It’s a shame she contaminates what might be a worthy topic, with herself. “Condescension and derision” are all she ever has. And let me tell you, you got off extremely lightly, having criticized her. You were only accused of name-calling. Everyone else who disagrees with her gets much more.
Dear Mr. Zest,
” Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. Since you already shot your credibility by claiming you don’t read Stephanie’s blog yet are commenting in it, it appears you are the one with the attitude issue. The very fact that she allows your posts to be displayed uncensored in HER blog shows that, unlike you, she is totally transparent. You whine about the fact that many people worked hard to make the annexation happen yet you could care less about the effects on those in the annexed area, including the business owners who would be forced to pay huge increases in their property taxes to subsidize people like you who live in a mismanaged village. On the contrary, her humurous expose’s of local issues drives people like Fred and you nuts. That alone is worth reading about in her blogs.
I’ll make a bet that when you read this you won’t reply, pretending you aren’t reading Steph’s blog. But admit it, you can’t resist the urge to read other peoples comments about the Viliage of Biscayne Park’s Village Idiots.
Really, Fred? Biscayne Park never got a fair hearing?
Are you really that unaware of how Robert’s Rules of Order works? Let me explain the process for someone who is supposed to know better.
A member makes a motion.
The chair asks for a second.
If a second is made, the matter is then up for discussion.
There is then a vote.
Majority wins.
If no second is made, the motion DIES.
Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean it wasn’t fair.
Seriously, you are embarrassing yourself, your city and all your constituents with all your incessant whining and complaining about me. You probably should stop, but if you like making a complete fool of yourself, carry on. It’s really quite entertaining.
“Pouncing on a simple typo.” Hmmmm. Sounds familiar. Where did I hear that before?
Oh, yeah, that’s right! “Dire straights!”
Fred, Fred, Fred. Are you really that self-unaware that you don’t see you are doing every single thing you are accusing me of doing and more, and that you can’t see the plank in your own eye?
But, no worries. The world might think you’re a joke, but Jesus still loves you.
Well, at least I think he does.
Taxed To Death, what a coincidentally inopportune time for you suddenly to run out of steam: just when you have an urgent and compelling issue to present to your neighbors.
Stephanie, I should remember not to give you more credit than is due you. The difference between a and an is a typo. The difference between straights and straits is someone who didn’t know the correct word was straits. Or who didn’t know the word straits existed. You thanked me for the correction, because you learned something. Phineas Zest did not thank you, because you offered nothing.
As for your ridiculous construction about the “fair hearing” BP’s annexation application got, you lapse into mindless bias. If this were some other issue, and you had some other axe to grind, you would be all over the mystery of County Commissioners who are disposed in favor of something, then suddenly lose consciousness when a vote has to be taken. You would find that most curious, and of great concern. But you’re not looking for fairness, and you have no interest or curiosity, so you content yourself with observing that the failure of a motion to earn a second says what needs to be said about the motion and its merit. You have fallen WAY down on your self-appointed job, and even your fans don’t seem to recognize it.
Mr Weinstein, BP is not at all the smallest independent municipality in Florida. The one with the fewest residents has five. Others have fewer than we do. As I said to Taxed To Death, if anyone wanted to argue that the State should never have allowed incorporation for municipalities as small as we are (and we were, of course, far smaller in population way back then), that’s a fair argument. As I also said, I wasn’t there, and I don’t know what the considerations were. Now, we can either do the best we can, or offer to unincorporate. Taxed To Death would start just such a movement, if he weren’t so exhausted. It might be instructive to him to notice that no one else, even with more energy than he has, has started such a movement. I wonder if that places him in a very tiny minority.
Fred, seriously. Don’t you have a job to do? Or something? I realize that your pathetic obsession to try to antagonize me is the only way you can feel good about your own inadequacies, but you really are beginning to look like a desperate troll.
You’re also starting to bore me.
I suggest you put on your big boy pants and go find a way to make yourself useful.
Hey Fred. I’ll bet the town with 5 people is doing better financilly than Biscayne Park is and isn’t looking to annex anybody as well.
Could be, Tony. I wouldn’t know. Was there a point?
BP has to try to make its way. It has never adequately succeeded. The current Commission has made a few initiatives to help the Village be more of a success. The annexation application was one of them. Doesn’t please everyone? Oh. I might be a bit distracted right now, but I’m sure you can name several things, or a few, or maybe one, that everyone someplace agreed on.
We’re trying to do our best, to provide proper husbanding of the Village, and to be respectful of the area we want to annex. We wanted to make the alliance worth it to them. The fact that Stephanie Kienzle can find fault is irrelevant. She always finds some version of fault. As I hope I was successful in pointing out, she can get very selective about what fault she finds.
You have simply made a supposition that might or might not be accurate. But I’m not sure in what sense it’s relevant.
Fred, is it even remotely possible for you to respond to any comment without conjuring up a way to try to insult me? Do you even realize you’re creepy behavior is borderline psychotic? Seriously, dude. You need to stop obsessing over me and get some help. There’s medication for your condition, you know.
Stephanie,
I’m not sure if you don’t realize this, or if it’s actually your aim, but when you misinform, get things wrong, or simply lie, you stir up a lot of unease in people. When that unease comes to the attention of someone like me, I have to take a lot and trouble to try to undo the damage you’ve done. If it’s even possible to undo it. You’re a big problem, and no, you can’t rely on me simply to overlook the messes you make, that someone else, like me, has to clean up. For example, when you requote an idiotic concept, like that this proposed annexation would have quintupled the ad valorem tax in the annexation area, you get people like Tony thinking not only that BP would be trying to commit highway robbery on the annexation area, but he then imagines we’re simply holding them up, and they have no say about it. And by the time he says something about that to me, it might be impossible to educate him that what you said and implied was complete nonsense, and totally wrong. And that’s not even taking into account the impossibility of getting YOU to recognize and admit how wrong you are. I’ve never seen you do it. In fact, you usually go the other way: when someone shows you you’re wrong, you attack them, often in irrelevant, ad hominem, and very childish ways. We’ve seen a number of examples of that in your responses to comments here.
My point Mr. Jonas was the same as your point for bringing it up. Is it revelant that there may be a few small municipalities that have less residents than Biscayne Park? What was your point?
The problem I see with your position is that the residents of the proposed annex area didn’t come to Biscayne Park and ask to be annexed. Its apparent they are quite content with their current governance. Your position could certainly be supported if the residents went through a petition process to be annexed. Since they did not, what gives you the right to make that decision for them? You appear to be the typical Democrat that thinks you know better than the average person and you should be the one to make people’s decisions for them. Not the American way. Our country was founded on personal freedoms and I for one prefer to make my own decisions.
Oh, I didn’t realize you don’t understand annexation.
No, I suspect it’s overwhelmingly common that areas annexed do not request to be annexed. I think it must come almost all the time from the annexing municipality. The annexing entity has its reasons for wanting to annex, and the area to be annexed may have reasons to agree. Or they might not.
It was never BP that would make that decision for anyone. The annexing entity makes an application to the County Commission, which then studies the matter. It can decide that annexation can proceed, or it can decide that it cannot. If the former, the residents of the annexation area are then allowed to vote whether or not they want to be annexed. Their consensus is not binding on the County Commission– which makes the final decision– but I have no doubt the County Commission gives significant weight to what the residents of the annexation target want.
Mr. Jonas, I have net met Stephanie Keinzle however I have been reading her blogs for the past two years and almost every number, every statement she makes, is factual. She digs deep into public records and researches the subject she writes about.
It will be impossible for you to educate me on anything because even though my IQ is only 99, it’s double yours.
I really do understand the concept that property taxes are not the entire tax bill but they are the largest part. Even with your IQ you should really be able to understand that when your tax rate goes from 1.92 to 9.75 its going to cost a lot more money to live in poor excuse for a city.
I agree with the other people that if Biscayne Park wants to expand its tax base, simply get annexed by North Miami or Miami Shores and your wish will come true.
Now close your eyes and click your heels together and repeat three times “I want to be a North Miamian, I want to be a North Miamian, I want to be a North Miamian”.
Are you kidding me? There are only 3300 residents in Biscayne Park and they are their own Town? There are more people than that living in my condo building in Winston Towers. How many people are employed there? I guess they have elected officials there too, right? Just like our condo board president, I’ll bet those officials there have their hand in the till too. Our president always gets a new car shortly after we get a special assessment for some large repair job. If Biscayne Park can’t balance its books, then it probably happening there too.
Hey Fred we are very glad you are not running for reelection. Looking at all your remarks just proves that you’re a dumb ass. Stick to your pathetic blog.
Fred says that areas wanting to be annexed don’t ask to be annexed, the city looking to do it just does it. That is a half truth. High Pines and other areas in South Dade have petitioned Coral Gables to provide their municipal services. BP is zoned residential. That means all you are getting is property taxes. The area wanting to be annexed is a combination. This means the county gives up extra fees in addition to property taxes. That is if the county agrees to do it. The area seeking to be annexed has less people than is required to have an actual vote of the residents. That means the county commission has the final say on the matter. If BP were to give up being a city then they would default to UMSA and would see a tax decrease. I doubt it if the MSV or any other would want to annex them nor would the BP residents (now UMSA residents) want MSV to annex them.