Palmetto Bay officials play the blame game through proxy. The blame lies with the current mayor, as it was her failure to follow through on the 2016 ordinance repeal. An ever expanding broken record of litigation funded by the taxpayers, who should remember in November!

The facts are simple (and unavoidable). Current mayor Cunningham had the opportunity to repeal the 2016 ordinance relating to the PBVC. Village Attorney John Herin, Esq. previously served as interim Village Attorney under Mayor Stanczyk’s administration. He was hired in 2017 to advise the council on how to repeal the 2016 ordinance that mayors Stanczyk and Cunningham complain so much about. This post is about what they could (and should have done) rather than complain. 

The repeal ordinance passed 3-2 on first reading which was held way back on April 3, 2017.  This was a special council meeting that was called (requested by those who voted in favor) for Independence Day weekend, 2017, (yes, a Saturday, July 1, 2017) – Soon after - and inexplicably, the second reading was deferred by a 5-0 vote. And so it withered and died a death from neglect. Why no follow up?

Bottom line - mayor Cunningham accepted ownership of the 2016 ordinance due to her failure to repeal it. 

Well? We are still waiting for an answer to the question as to why it was never completed. Karyn Cunningham had the votes in 2017 as a member of the village council as well as in 2019, or at any time after becoming mayor. But she sat on it, neglected it, all after spending taxpayer money on a legal opinion and preparation of legislation not enacted, but instead, neglected it to the point where Palmetto Bay taxpayers once again find themselves in court to defend errors and mistakes of this current mayor and council.  

What did Cunningham think would happen if this ordinance was not repealed; that the Palmetto Bay Village Center issue would simply go away?

A broken record of litigation.

Facts are facts. It is current Mayor Cunningham’s failure to follow through has led to the PBVC seeking the present zoning on the 2016 & 2018 ordinances. It did not have to come to this had the repeal ordinance been properly and fully pursued. 

So why the finger pointing, especially through proxy emails full of misstatements? For nearly four years the current mayor and her supporters have been pushing the rearview mirror and used finger pointing tactics to avoid the facts that they have continually failed to act. Perhaps because we once again have a mayor who has no positive record of her own to stand on. Truth hurts.

Promises not kept by current elected officials? Obviously plenty of promises made. Few kept.

These facts have been pointed out before, but the Cunningham proxies continue to ignore the facts and continue to push out inaccurate information. See: September 1, 2020, Opinion - How did this council get to a recommendation in favor of the 480? There once was a procedure to ‘undo’ the 480, but the present mayor and vice mayor appear to have dropped that effort, allowing staff to recommend 480.

OFFICAL DOCUMENTS CONFIRMING THE FACTS:

CLICK HERE to view the ordinance folder relating to the repeal of the 2016 Ordinance.

CLICK HERE to read the 14 page treatise stating that the 2016 ordinance can be undone and providing the road map on how to do it.

Future post: The Mayor and Council should properly apply the 2016 ordinance for the benefit of the community. There is a significant difference between "administrative site plan review" and an "administrative variance". I will explain the difference to them in a future post.