Help prevent animal cruelty. Request is made for anyone with information to report it.

Please keep an eye out and assist in apprehension. On Sunday, October 27, 2019, a resident observed a peahen with two metal darts embedded in its body. This resident was able to remove one of the darts before the peahen flew away.

Anyone with information is asked to assist in solving a case of animal cruelty.

Thank you to the Palmetto Bay resident who was able to take action and assist this peahen before it flew off.

If you know anything about this crime, please call Detective Enrique Sanchez at 305-278-4014 or Miami-Dade Crime Stoppers at 305-471-TIPS.

Procedural update on the Luxcom administrative action. 10/29/2019 Order Dismissing Village of Palmetto Bay Council and Amending Caption.

Not exactly an Earth shaking update.  The ALJ rendered an Order Dismissing Village of Palmetto Bay Council and Amending Caption as posted on the online DOAH docket, Tuesday, October 29, 2019. CLICK HERE to view the order as posted online.

IMPACT: Only the caption will change. The true issues remain.

The case continues to move forward.

PRIOR RELATED POST: Monday, October 28, 2019, LUXCOM litigation update. Attorneys for Petitioner Luxcom, LLC, have agreed to Dismiss the Village Of Palmetto Bay Council as named Respondents

I will continue to keep you advised.

Eugene Flinn

Pinecrest Wins, Palmetto Bay loses. Pinecrest Council discusses material changes to 136 St Bike Lane. Palmetto Bay may be home to a 10 foot MEGA sidewalk instead of a shared project.

Residents who live along SW 136th Street - prepare yourself for a 10 foot MEGA sidewalk (a/k/a 'multi-use path) to be placed in front of your homes.  The other shoe has dropped - and this one falls very loudly, with great impact. Far too many, if not all Palmetto Bay residents, will learn of this months old change to the project for the first time here on this blog post, rather than directly from their current elected officials. That is a shame. Please view the video posted below for the important information. I can add little over the statements and cackling contained in this video. It is a much watch and it may change your opinion of how those in our neighboring municipality view their neighbor to the south.

And to add insult to injury, Palmetto Bay residents - get ready to spend over $500,000 of our own tax dollars to relieve Pinecrest of its shared burden on this bike lane project. And apparently, no residents were ever consulted regarding this change in project. If they were, they were insiders with special privileged access. 

Let me preface some of my remarks with the statement that when I was Mayor, I kept a close eye on projects such as this Howard Drive Bike Lane Project, so I am not buying into any defense from the current Mayor and Palmetto Bay Council that they were unaware.  The Pinecrest Council even discussed that this matter was to be discussed at a Chamber South Transportation Meeting (was Palmetto Bay represented at this meeting?). The Mayor indicated that this project had been changed to the 10 foot multi-path months earlier. Palmetto Bay is not advising its resents, in fact, the village website continues to describe the project as follows:

This project is currently under design. Improvements include minor widening of the roadway to add bike lanes on both sides of the road and milling & resurfacing the existing roadway. We are looking to replace the existing 5’ sidewalk on the South side of SW 136TH Street (Village of Palmetto Bay Side) with a new 7’ wide sidewalk. Other improvements will include pavement markings, ADA Compliant pedestrian ramps, and landscape improvements. This is a LAP Project between Miami Dade County and FDOT, and Village of Pinecrest and Village of Palmetto Bay are also stakeholders.

The above was the Palmetto Bay project description as of 11:00 AM, October 30, 2019.

There is so much more to being an elected official than selfies and trying to break records for the number of proclamations that can be awarded.  

Protecting your residents from having to shoulder 100% of a joint infrastructure project is one such example. People who feared loss of trees for a simple bike lane will now face a much greater impact from a 10 foot 'multi-use path' (a/k/a a MEGA sidewalk) in front of their homes.  There will be much less room to park without violating the ADA by parking on a sidewalk. There will be significantly less room for trees. And I am waiting to see how this MEGA sidewalk impacts the parking and 136th Street parking and student drop off at Howard Drive Elementary.

I knew how the (then) planned bike lanes would impact, or how we could and would mitigate impacts to neighbors at all times while I was mayor. Does current Mayor Cunningham have the insight for this material change? If so, when were we to be advised? Monitoring the project and actually delivering on the promises are even more important that the conceptualization. 

It appears that this current Palmetto Bay Council fail to read and understand their agenda; what they are voting on. (See prior post, link far below)

And now we see what happens to our residents when the same members of the Palmetto Bay Village Council fail to follow up and monitor projects in development.

How did the Pinecrest Council react? View for yourself. What bothers me the most as a Palmetto Bay resident? What I perceive to be the sheer glee exhibited by some of the Pinecrest Council which you can see at minute one of the video when the Pinecrest Manager reveals that the entire shared path is actually going to go on the Palmetto Bay side. The entire Pinecrest Village Council erupts in laughter that seem to indicate to me that they are relieved their community is now off the hook. 

“Excellent!” is the excited utterance of Pinecrest Vice Mayor Anna Hochkammer (at 1:11) when discussing how the project is entirely withing Palmetto Bay. 

Then there is what I feel to be a somewhat caustic comment at one minute, 11 seconds, “…those guys cannot organize a two car motorcade - they're going to screw this up." Is this comment direct to Miami-Dade County or Palmetto Bay? Decide for yourself.

Don't just take my word for it. See and hear for yourself:
00:00:37 Pinecrest Manager explained that the issue is that County has analyzed SW 136th Street - trees are going to be an issue. (Editor’s comment: Not for Pinecrest, but now only an issue for Palmetto Bay) 00:01:00 – Pinecrest Manager reveals that the entire shared path is actually going to go on the Palmetto Bay side [Laughter erupts and ensues amongst the entire Pinecrest Village Council – “Excellent!” – Pinecrest Vice Mayor Anna Hochkammer ( 1:11 )] 00:01:11 Impolite comment: “…those guys cannot organize a two car motorcade - they're going to screw this up." (Editor's Comment: does this refer to Miami-Dade County or Palmetto Bay?) 00:01:19 Pinecrest council discussed "pulling their million dollars back" - "It's now in Palmetto Bay, it's never going to happen" Redesign was created (1:45:30). 00:02:50 Pinecrest Council discussion, confirming that the County Commissioner is involved. 00:03:05 Mayor Corradino discusses bringing this project up for discussion at the Friday, Chamber South Transportation Committee (this would have been Friday, October 18, 2019). Pinecrest Council debate goes on in regard to staying involved as it will never happen if it relies upon Palmetto Bay alone. 00:03:15 One Pinecrest Councilmember asks a ‘legitimate question’ – why is Pinecrest paying $1 million when this project is now fully on the Palmetto Bay side? 00:04:05 Pinecrest Council in discussion, that they cannot pull out, the project will never get done if they do. 00:05:08 Discussion of Traffic Control devices on Old Cutler Road – preliminary plans were to include up to 2 traffic circles as part of the program 00:05:40 Note the discussion in Pinecrest on control over the art for the traffic calming - Pinecrest will control. (mocking Palmetto Bay’s past choices). Pinecrest Manager talks about how she pushed back with Palmetto Bay to maintain Pinecrest’s choice / control as a requirement of Pinecrest’s participation. 00:06:07 (to 6:26) Pinecrest Council laughing at the loss of Palmetto Bay Village Manager - mocking Palmetto Bay's Manager situation. 00:06:54 Pinecrest Manager states that the County has committed to new construction plans by February (2020) 00:07:30 Mayor mocks Palmetto Bay - "Wait till you tell Palmetto Bay, then all hell will break loose in Palmetto Bay because they (PBay) are doing something" (7:38) End of discussion on this topic – the meeting moves on to the remainder of the agenda.

RELEVANT MATERIALS - THE ISSUE 'TOOL BOX':

See prior posts of January 13, 2019, Taking a close look. A ten foot multi-use path proposed for around Palmetto Bay by a member of the Village Council - here is how it might look. Actual photos of a similar, if not identical design. Offering some Pros & Cons

October 29, 2019, Foreshadowing - for now, please review the Palmetto Bay Path conceptual Plan proposed by Marsha Matson, Palmetto Bay Councilmember, District 3, March 18, 2019. and

October 28, 2019, Village Council Chaos - Interaction with Village Attorney at a council meeting - Village Mayor & Council: You have been told repeatedly. You are the voting body. You have responsibilities of reading and knowing what you are voting on.

Foreshadowing - for now, please review the Palmetto Bay Path conceptual Plan proposed by Marsha Matson, Palmetto Bay Councilmember, District 3, March 18, 2019.

I am merely putting this out there for now- more to come later. This is foreshadowing.

Please review the Palmetto Bay Path conceptual Plan proposed by Marsha Matson, Palmetto Bay Councilmember, District 3, March 18, 2019. (CLICK HERE) to download and view this 23 page document.

And also please note - I do not believe this is available online on the official Village of Palmetto Bay web site, but you can find it here as it is posted to my Googledrive.

There is some good stuff (and some items where I will express opinions on at a later date) here - the SW 136th Street plan, consistent with the Joint Agreement with Miami-Dade County and Palmetto Bay - specifically resolution 2018-47.  And once again, please note - neither of these documents appear to be available online on the official Village of Palmetto Bay web site, but you can find it here as it is posted to my Googledrive. (CLICK HERE) to view this Miami-Dade County Memorandum of October 23, 2018 (17 pages). This County Memo includes Palmetto Bay Resolution 2018-47.

Here is what is currently posted on the official village website (CLICK HERE) - note the information is as posted on October 29, 2019, 4:00 PM.

136th St. Improvement ProjectThis project is currently under design. Improvements include minor widening of the roadway to add bike lanes on both sides of the road and milling & resurfacing the existing roadway. We are looking to replace the existing 5’ sidewalk on the South side of SW 136TH Street (Village of Palmetto Bay Side) with a new 7’ wide sidewalk. Other improvements will include pavement markings, ADA Compliant pedestrian ramps, and landscape improvements. This is a LAP Project between Miami Dade County and FDOT, and Village of Pinecrest and Village of Palmetto Bay are also stakeholders.

Finally, I have uploaded (former) Item 10E from the February 4, 2019, agenda - the Staff Report (remember when those were made available to the public?). This is a 31 page document relating to this issue I will be discussing at a later date. Please consider this part of your SW 136 Street Improvement 'tool box' for now. (CLICK HERE) to download and view.

There is more to come - I promise you. Information that is relevant to transparency in government (or lack of) as well as the status of prior agreements, notice and impact to residents, especially those who are most directly impacted.

LUXCOM litigation update. Attorneys for Petitioner Luxcom, LLC, have agreed to Dismiss the Village Of Palmetto Bay Council as named Respondents

YACHT CLUB BY LUXCOM, LLC. Files a notice of voluntary dismissal as to the Village Council as defendant at 4:51 PM, Monday, October 28, 2019.  This is an admission that Village Attorney Dexter Lehtinen (and his firm) were correct in their limited Motion to dismiss filed as to Village of Palmetto Bay Council) arguing that the Village of Palmetto Bay Council is not a proper party to this proceeding. There are two parties listed as respondents to this action. The Village of Palmetto Bay as a municipal corporation as well as the Village of Palmetto Bay Council.

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

            Petitioner, YACHT CLUB BY LUXCOM, LLC, hereby files its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice only as to Respondent, VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY COUNCIL, with each party to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees

This is a partial victory, but the Village of Palmetto Bay remains a Respondent in this action that moves forward to the December 2019 hearing. 

This Council (and the taxpaying public) will miss Village Attorney Dexter Lehtinen's litigation skills. Let’s hope the Village Council finds a way to convince ‘retiring’ Village Attorney Dexter Lehtinen and his firm to carry on in the present litigated cases as runoff work.

See PRIOR RELATED POST of October 21, 2019, Monday, 10/21/2019: Motion to dismiss filed as to Village of Palmetto Bay Council. Update on Administrative action filed by Petitioner, YACHT CLUB BY LUXCOM, LLC. Once again, you can only read this information on this blog or on the official DOAH docket as there remains no update to the Palmetto Bay litigation page or in any of the email blasts of the village or our elected officials.

This notice was worked out between the parties (each side to bear their own costs and attorneys' fees). The Dismissal was filed in response to the motion filed last Monday, October 21, 2019, to dismiss the Petition as against the Village of Palmetto Bay Council arguing that the Village of Palmetto Bay Council is not a proper party to this proceeding. There are two parties listed as respondents to this action. The Village of Palmetto Bay as a municipal corporation as well as the Village of Palmetto Bay Council.

CLICK HERE to view this Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed Monday, October 28, 2019. It is short and to the point.

More on the scapegoating - see a PRIOR RELATED POST of October 28, 2019, Village Council Chaos - Interaction with Village Attorney at a council meeting - Village Mayor & Council: You have been told repeatedly. You are the voting body. You have responsibilities of reading and knowing what you are voting on.

Village Council Chaos - Interaction with Village Attorney at a council meeting - Village Mayor & Council: You have been told repeatedly. You are the voting body. You have responsibilities of reading and knowing what you are voting on.

A famous quote attributed to the US Congress: 

“We [need] to pass the bill in order to find out what [is] in it.”

But passage is clearly insufficient with this current council. Some Members of the Village Council are apparently voting on Village business, resolutions, ordinances, (budget perhaps?) without understanding the details. And by details, we mean important facts such as impact, effective and expiration dates; deadlines in general.

Please note that the Moratorium started in 2017 - brought forward by Palmetto Bay Village Council Member David Singer shortly after his election. Council Member Singer has been consistent in advising the council body that moratoriums have a legal lifespan, warning that the time was going on far too long. This was discussed in this video by the Village Attorney.

STOP AVOIDING RESPONSIBILITY; THE BUCK STOPS WITH THE MAYOR AND VILLAGE COUNCIL MEMBERS

Don't blame staff, the Village Manager or the Village Attorney. Neither sets policy. The bottom line – the council has always been kept up to date. Council Members can pick up the phone can call or personally meet with any Charter Officer about any item of concern. They were told at all time – were always kept in the loop. As stated by Attorney Lehtinen, it is the council who votes – and they have the responsibility to listen to what they are told; to read and understand what they are voting on.

ATTORNEY LEHTINEN PROVIDED AN ANSWER THAT THE COUNCIL DISLIKED

It all stated when Village Councilwoman asked Village Attorney Dexter Lehtinen if Palmetto Bay was in a “ZIP” – (Zoning In Progress – a form of moratorium or restriction on zoning applications). Listen for yourself and then read further below.

The excerpt posted starts where the council makes its biggest attempt to scapegoat the Attorney. It is the most important part of the exchange. After that, I invite you to start the video from the beginning and watch Village Attorney Dexter Lehtinen explain the status of the village rewrite of the DUV and how it got to this point.

WHY CAN'T THE PUBLIC SEE THE STAFF REPORTS?

The Village Attorney is an important part of the process. Unfortunately this current Mayor and Council have seen fit to remove important information from the website. No longer can residents download and view any Staff or Legal reports relating to items on the Agenda, that is if any are actually still being prepared and included - they certainly are not being read by this Mayor and Council if they are included. Even the actual proposed resolutions and Ordinances (the actual documents) have been removed from public access on the website. 

STOP THE SCAPEGOATING.

The video excerpt attached here shows the utter legislative chaos and scapegoating that have become the cultural norm of this current Mayor and Council - and that is from those who participate. Some merely sit quietly either unwilling or incapable of engaging.  

Outgoing Village Attorney Dexter Lehtinen corrects the record as he is unwilling to attach his name to the sad status of the product coming out (or not moving forward) from this current council.  As stated in the details, perhaps this is why he "retired" from a municipal attorney position, seen by many as a plumb job. Attorney Lehtinen is not fully retiring, he remains an active member of his law firm as well as teaching at the UM School of Law - he just seems unwilling to continue on at Palmetto Bay under the current conditions.

Please Have a Happy and Safe Halloween - 2019. Drive carefully. Tip Sheet

Be alert this Halloween. It is up to every driver (and passengers, help, don't distract drivers) to keep the kids safe this Halloween (obviously everyday as well).  Halloween is one of my favorite events. This is one of many special days when Palmetto Bay shines from organized neighborhood events to the spooky, decorated golf carts cruising our community.  

So few areas have active trick or treaters. Not so here in Palmetto Bay - its a valued and vibrant tradition - kids of all ages and parents who get out and mix with friends, neighbors and guests.  I am posting a tip sheet below prepared by some of our friends that I still keep in touch with.

Of course, we in Palmetto Bay have always had an extra police presence on duty for each Halloween - the "Pumpkin Patrol" which I assume is continuing again this year.

Happy Halloween to my friends, neighbors and fellow residents – and yes there will be candy for the trick or treaters on our street.  And, by the way, both our dogs, Bailey and Timmy will be in costume.  I look forward to another once a year night of fun.

CLICK HERE to view prior related posts on Halloween in Palmetto Bay.

Stay safe, Have fun.

Eugene Flinn

Thoughts on the most recent litigation FILED by the village: Good faith or is this a less than good faith attempt to avoid a deal that the Mayor and Council had no authority to make?

The recent lawsuit for injunctive relief is a very big deal. This is diplomacy through litigation, giving up on communication turning the entire matter over to the court where all parties are divested of certain decision making authority. This is a long post, but this is an extraordinary situation that cannot be presented in 'small bites', so please use this as weekend reading.

The buzz around the village is whether the current Mayor and council overstepped their authority in reaching a formal agreement with Miami-Dade County, through the Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTPW) without bringing the proposal back to the residents. It is a fair question as others have wondered whether this lawsuit is an abject 'abdication of responsibility' of the responsibility of their elected office as spelled out in the Village Charter for Mayor Cunningham and the entire Village Council to maintain civility, communication and advocate for Palmetto Bay with Miami-Dade County. 

Is the lawsuit nothing but an attempt to weasel out of the commitment represented by Village elected leaders to support the traffic circle and force a four way stop as a permanent measure despite an agreed-to short term stopgap? This lawsuit may provide some insight.

Bridges for 77th and 87th Avenue and what of Old Cutler Road?

Is this council abdicating their responsibility for traffic calming and simply asking the court to step in and decide for them an issue of Village-wide concern, issues relating to the bridges for 77th and 87th Avenues and Old Cutler Road, as they would prefer to continue to hand out feel good proclamations over getting their hands dirty on issues of controversy? This lawsuit can be seen as a mechanism to avoid issues they signed up to decide. 

Debunking some of the 'reasons alleged' for the lawsuit.

Also troubling is the apparent abandonment of discussion and rush to court. This suit is very limited, it seeks relief specific only to the intersection of SW 87th Avenue and SW 174th Street.

When has Miami-Dade County ever refused to sit and negotiate? I have always found the County, yes including the DTPW, to always be available to discuss. There has been significant collaboration in the past - and yes, there has been disagreement as well. But this is part of a relationship where disagreement occurs. That is the nature of overlapping governmental authority. It is quite disingenuous to alleged that a this lawsuit is needed to get the parties to sit and talk, especially at a mediation. Tell me this mayor and council really do not believe such foolish talk to be accurate. 

This is far from a lawsuit against the County "to take control of our streets" as we have heard some yet to declare candidates promote. It is undeniable that the facts allege in the verified complaint relative to Malbrook would be the best opportunity to file such a suit, yet it is not filed and the rumor remains hanging out there as the next kool aid to be passed out in the 2020 Village elections. Watch out for it.

BAD PRECEDENT?  

BEST CASE: The best result of this lawsuit is a court order making the 4 way stop permanent. Many Malbrook residents are not in favor of the 4 way stops remains. This opinion is not consistent within or outside of Malbrook. When then, can we expect a lawsuit to restore the 4 way stop signs on 82nd Avenue at 148th in Mangowood?

WORST CASE: We move forward to negotiation with Miami-Dade County through lawsuit after lawsuit with the results determined by the court

Either way, it is clear that our local elected council members, the Mayor and Council Members have exhausted their advocacy talents and have turned instead to diplomacy through litigation.

WHAT WAS AGREED TO?

Good question.  And it deserves a straight and unequivocal answer.

Mayor Cunningham distributed the following update in an e-blast:

On Monday, Commissioner Cava's staff and Village staff, including myself, met with representatives from Miami-Dade County Transportation and Public Works Department and Marlin Engineering, the Village's traffic engineering firm, to discuss the traffic solutions that have been proposed for the Malbrook neighborhood area. Previously, County staff had requested a traffic study to substantiate the request made by the Village for traffic mitigation. The results were discussed and subsequently the plans have been approved by the county. As was previously discussed, the solutions proposed to reduce cut-through traffic for Malbrook include:

• a dedicated right tun lane from SW 87th Avenue onto SW 168th Street

• permanent installation of "no-right turn" signs along SW 87th Avenue for eastbound traffic

• a traffic circle for the intersection of SW 174th Street and SW 87th Avenue

I have requested that the plans be shared with the community.  Next step are Council approval, funding, plans and implementation. You can click here to read the approval letter.

THE ACTUAL WORDS USED ARE IMPORTANT. Words have meaning, especially in context: This appears to be what is termed "a done deal" as the language used by the Mayor is "...Next step (sic) are Council approval, funding, plans and implementation." (Emphasis in bold is added). I places those words in bold to show that no where does it indicate that this proposal was to come back for negotiation. To the contrary, its council approval (not "discussion") plans AND (not possible) implementation."

Is it the Mayor and Village Council that have broken the agreement with the County and not the other way around?

There is much to consider here. Now we, the Village Taxpayers, sit and wait for important operational decisions to be made by the court - or for the court to reject this suit and push the responsibility back where it belongs - on the Palmetto Bay Village Council.

Finally, a post script (I will let the Village's own words speak for itself): As promoted by the official Palmetto Bay social media on September 17, 2019, posted on its official Facebook page:

MALBROOK UPDATE: Thanks to the stewardship of our Mayor & Council and our County Commissioner who continue to advocate for our residents, Malbrook residents will soon get some relief to their traffic situation. Mayor Cunningham and Village staff, along with Sean McCrackine and Maria Levrant from County Commissioner Levine Cava’s office met with representatives from Miami-Dade County Transportation and Public Works Department and Marlin Engineering, the Village’s traffic engineering firm, to discuss the traffic solutions proposed for the Malbrook neighborhood area. ... 

(go to the official page, 9/17/19 to view for yourself)

New date for the formal Very Grand Opening Celebration for Station 62 announced: Saturday November 9th at 10:00 AM

MDFR is ready (and has been ready) to roll. the new date for the formal Very Grand Opening Celebration for Station 62 was just released. 

The date is Saturday November 9th at 10:00 AM

Look forward to a major celebration involving the entire community! This will be a family-friendly event open to the entire community, as it is scheduled for a date and time when many will not be at school or work.

CLICK HERE to view prior related posts related to MDFR Station 62!

Litigation update: Palmetto Bay V. Miami-Dade County, case no.: 2019-031036-CA-01, filed 10/18/2019

Because you have the right to know and have indicated an interest in being kept in the loop:

Litigation update. The Village of Palmetto Bay filed the complaint for injunctive relief on October 18, 2019.  (CLICK HERE to access copies of the documents filed to date - the 6 page verified complaint and civil cover sheet). Here is where this lawsuit stands:

VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, FLORIDA VS MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
Local Case Number: 2019-031036-CA-01
Filing Date: 10/18/2019
State Case Number: 132019CA031036000001
Judicial Section: CA11 - Honorable Mavel Ruiz

This is a complaint for an injunction, an order of the court, that would prohibit the County from removing the 4 way stop signs.  Note that this lawsuit seeks to halt the removal of the additional stop signs on SW 87 Avenue, as there were previously stop signs for east/west traffic on SW 174th Street that are not at risk of being removed. 

The County has stated that if the Village did not approve the traffic circle at the October 17, 2019 meeting, that the additional Stop Signs must be removed by the close of business on October 18, 2019.  The Village Council voted down the traffic circle 5-0 at that Oct. 18, 2019, meeting.

The arguments raised in the suit for injunctive relief include the following:

• Governmental action cannot be arbitrary and capricious.  
• The County previously approved the Additional Stop Signs. 
• Requiring the immediate removal of the Additional Stop Signs with no alternative traffic safety measure in place is arbitrary and capricious and a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the Village.  
• All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been met or otherwise waived.

What the lawsuit seeks (relief sought):

An injunction to prevent the removal of the Additional Stop Signs is in the public interest because it the Additional Stop Signs increase safety and protect the public health, safety and welfare at the Dangerous Intersection.  

The "prayer for relief" or what the Village asks for is plead as follows:

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Village respectfully requests that this Court enter an injunction to prohibit the County from removing or requiring the removal of the Additional Stop Signs without the installation or provision of an alternate safety measure in place, and grant any other relief that this Court deems just and proper. 

I will keep you advised as to how this suit progresses. To date (as of this blog post) only the complaint and the civil cover sheet have been filed.

What is next? It is up to the defendant, Miami-Dade County. The Judge in this case may issue a preliminary injunction should Palmetto Bay demonstrate: 

(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; 
(2) that irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction issues; 
(3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and 
(4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. 

Intersection at issue 87/174

Note that both a preliminary (and permanent) injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy which is not granted unless the movant (here Palmetto Bay) establishes the burden of persuasion as to each of the four listed prerequisites.

PRIOR RELATED POST - please see the October 16, 2019, post: Try working with the County - Miami-Dade County paid for the other traffic circles under my administrations - the money is there, but it takes a partnership for additional information.

SPECIAL NOTE relating to public access and transparency: Palmetto Bay officials continue to neglect to update the “litigation page” online to include any information relating to this newly filed lawsuit seeking injunctive relief (or other recent actions) on the official village website (at least as of  1:00 PM, Wednesday, 10/23/2019). Posting would be for courtesy, as it is not required, but would aid in transparency. As pointed out previously, many of the documents from the prior administrations have been removed from public access online. 

After all, if DOAH and Miami-Dade Clerk of Courts can post these (and many other) documents online, why can’t Palmetto Bay? Don't buy the "ADA" argument. DOAH/the Courts are under the same ADA requirements as any other government entity. The ADA is an excuse or dodge as applied by Palmetto Bay.

Eugene Flinn

Another delay in the grand opening of the MDFR Station 62, new date will be announced, It will be a Sat for families to participate. it will be a Saturday. I will keep you in the loop.

I was advised that the November date for the opening of MDFR Station 62 is being rescheduled due to accommodate everyone's schedule.  The good news is that Bob B's request/suggestion for a Saturday date was accepted - so look forward to a Saturday very Grand and very public opening!

MDFR is actively working to coordinate a new date. MDFR was clear that the MDFR Officials are looking at a Saturday morning so families can participate and make the whole day one big fun day!

Soft opening.  Out of the trailers! The grand opening can wait, but the station will actually open next Tuesday so the firefighters can begin working from it and get out of the trailers

Date to be announced, but for now, the November 12, 2019, 10:00 AM date/time is OFF.

PRIOR RELATED POST: See: October 9, 2019, Update - I am been advised that the Grand Opening of MDFR station 62 has been reset for 10:00 AM on November 12, 2019.

Should the Comprehensive Plan be changed from "environmental protected” to "estate density residential"; to accommodate 10 single family homes. Here is yet another example of the transparency rug being pulled out from under us by our current Village Council.

First a zoning matter that may have escaped your notice. Then, another word about transparency at bottom of this post. Note this property was originally home to a man-made lake, part of the FPL properties. It was originally designated as "environmental protected"under the Village of Palmetto Bay Comprehensive Plan passed under my first term of office.  The developer has filled in this lake and not seeks a change from "environmental protected" to "estate density residential"; amending the zoning map, referred to in Section 30-10.5, to change from "estate-single family" ("E-1") to "estate modified" ("E-M") (one unit per 15,000 sq. ft.; and site plan approval for the development of ten (10) single family homes. 

Your chance to hear more about this project and make your voice heard - pre-zoning hearing - is Wednesday, October 23, 2017, at 7:00 PM.

This was sent to me by a reader - I even missed it (until now). Thanks for the heads up. 

Was notification sufficient in timing and distribution to provide sufficient time for the neighborhood activists to notified their affected neighbors?

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP (WINDSOR INVESTMENTS)
Wednesday, October 23, 2019 - 7:00 p.m.
Village Hall Municipal Center

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT that that Windsor Investments, LLC shall be hosting a Community Workshop on Wednesday, October 23, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. The Community Workshop shall be held at Village Hall Municipal Center located at 9705 East Hibiscus Street, Council Chambers, Palmetto Bay, Florida 33157. Discussion and public input will be welcomed concerning the following items that may be of interest to your immediate neighborhood. 

Property Address:  North of SW 152nd Street, South of SW 149th Terrace (between SW 71st Court & SW 69th Court)
Property Folio:   33-5023-000-0582
Applicant: Windsor Investments (Westminster Manor), LLC
Application No.: VPB-19-007
Requests: Amending the Comprehensive Plan, referred to in Sec. 30-30.8, to change from "environmental protected to "estate density residential"; amending the zoning map, referred to in Section 30-10.5, to change from "estate-single family" ("E-1") to "estate modified" ("E-M") (one unit per 15,000 sq. ft.; and site plan approval for the development of ten (10) single family homes, pursuant to section 30.30.5 of the code of ordinances.

During the Community Workshop, a presentation will be made of the proposed development and there will be time for questions and answers. All members of the public are welcomed to attend, observe and give public comment. Councilmembers may attend and observe, but not participate. The workshop is held pursuant to Resolution No. 2018-14 requiring that potential developers make a presentation before the general public regarding potential development projects for the purpose of discussing the project parameters and characteristics in a public meeting.
***   ***   ***

The lake as it once was. It is now filled in - in the anticipation of 10 new home sites

The lake pictured is no more. The developer has been working on filling it in over the past 2 years. This is an important matter that has concerned many residents for a very long time. This is an example of why we need to protect and not receded from transparency. Or maybe this is a reason for the reduction in transparency.

I remain thankful that under my leadership, we passed Resolution No. 2018-14. requiring that potential developers make a presentation before the general public regarding potential development projects for the purpose of discussing the project parameters and characteristics in a public meeting. CLICK HERE to view this resolution sponsored by Council Member David Singer (and note that it is the only resolution for 2018 posted on the Village website. 118 resolutions were passed in 2018. One and only one is posted on the village - that being resolution 2018-14. Why are the other 2017 not posted? All resolutions past under my administration were posted up to October 2018 when I left office.  Transparency is important, or it should be)

118 resolutions - 117 are missing as of 7:00 AM, 10/22/2019.

Monday, 10/21/2019: Motion to dismiss filed as to Village of Palmetto Bay Council. Update on Administrative action filed by Petitioner, YACHT CLUB BY LUXCOM, LLC.

Litigation update. You can only read this information here. There is no update to the Palmetto Bay litigation page or in any of the email blasts of the village or our elected officials.

UPDATE (Monday, October 21, 2019) Attorneys for the VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY COUNCIL have moved to dismiss the Petition as against the Village of Palmetto Bay Council arguing that the Village of Palmetto Bay Council is not a proper party to this proceeding. There are two parties listed as respondents to this action. The Village of Palmetto Bay as a municipal corporation as well as the Village of Palmetto Bay Council.

CLICK HERE to view this motion. It is short and to the point.

Council argument through this motion is that there is no authority in Chapter 163 or Chapter 120 for the inclusion of the Village of Palmetto Bay Council as a separate party in this proceeding pursuant to Florida Statute § 163.3184(5).

Opposing counsel attorneys for the Petitioner, Yacht Club by Luxcom,LLC, has seven (7) days to respond to this motion pursuant to DOAH Uniform Rules of Procedure, Rule 28-106.204(1).

POSSIBLE IMPACT: The Village of Palmetto Bay Council may be dismissed out as a party, but the claim against the Village, Village of Palmetto Bay, would remain intact. Whether a separate motion to dismiss is being prepared remains to be seen. I will update when I become advised of any filings. We will see if the Petitioner, Yacht Club by Luxcom,LLC, responds. The Administrative Law Judge may respond any time after the response is filed, or the time for filing expires (seven days).

CLICK HERE to view PRIOR RELATED POSTS

CONTINUING SPECIAL NOTE: Palmetto Bay officials continue to neglect to update the “litigation page” online to include any information relating to this action (or other recent actions) on the official village website (at least as of  4:00 PM, Monday, 10/21/2019). Posting would be for courtesy, as it is not required, but would aid in transparency. As pointed out previously, many of the documents from the prior administrations have been removed from public access online. 

After all, if DOAH can post these (and many other) documents online, why can’t Palmetto Bay? Don't buy the "ADA" argument. DOAH/the Courts are under the same ADA requirements as any other government entity. 

Eugene Flinn