Join our Youth Community Involvement Task Force (YCITF) in bringing a Buddy Bench to Coral Reef Park this summer! A Buddy Bench is a designated seat in schools or public spaces where children can sit if they need a friend by their side. It stands out, promotes kindness and empathy, and prevents bullying. Click the following link to donate for the YCITF's initiative today:
“My Buddy Bench Project” is a non-profit organization.
EDITOR's NOTE: The project is for Coral Reef Park. But I humbly suggest that one is needed for the Village Council Chambers where the current elected officials bully up on Council Member Marsha Matson.
Maybe the youth are on to something. Perhaps the Youth Community Involvement Task Force (YCITF) should set the example for the alleged adults in the (council) room by in bringing a Buddy Bench to the Council Chambers in Village Hall.
The irony. The members of the YCITF are working to reduce bullying while the elected officials are trying to perfect it as a method of controlling dissent. The members of the Village YCITF get it, but the message falls upon the deaf ears of the current mayor and members of the Village Council (other than Council Member Matson).
Thank you, readers, – for the feedback on one of my recent
posts regarding civility. I am sure there are more questions than I received
personally, so I will address the general conversation I had over the weekend. I was asked about the enforceability of the Palmetto Bay Ordinances. The topic was stimulated by my blog post of Friday, May 10, 2024.
It was, perhaps, a mistake to use the term “rules” as the rules
discussed in the post are contained in an Ordinance.
And yes, an Ordinance differs from a resolution. State Law defines them both in Section
166.041:
(a) “Ordinance” means an official legislative action of a
governing body, which action is a regulation of a general and permanent nature
and enforceable as a local law.
(b) “Resolution” means an expression of a governing body concerning matters of administration, an expression of a temporary character, or a provision for the disposition of a particular item of the administrative business of the governing body.
A short legal opinion on following the rules is Yes, an ordinance is a law. Breaking an
ordinance is basically breaking a local law for all practical purposes. The
question is whether anyone is willing or has the means to enforce that ordinance. When the Mayor or other members of the
village council fail to follow an ordinance, they fail to follow the law.
No Village Official, elected, Charter or staff, - has the
right or privilege to ignore or act contrary to any village ordinance.
Bottom line is elections matter and the the failure to follow village ordinances have been documented for you to decide. Some people enjoy it as entertainment, but this is not how elected officials were intended to behave, at least per the Palmetto Bay Ordinances.
Please read the entire article - but here is an excerpt:
Miami-Dade’s recent sewage spills have caught the eye of the state, which fined the county $123,000 for violating its agreement to stop spilling wastewater into the ocean and issued a stern warning: clean up your act.
Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection warned Miami-Dade in April that its wastewater treatment plant on Virginia Key had “multiple deficiencies,” including broken and trash-clogged equipment used to process waste and a “large number” of spills.
In a final order published Thursday, the agency listed some of the county’s recent spills, which violated a 2013 agreement with the state and the United States Environmental Protection Agency to fix the county’s aging and leaky sewage system.
The state said Miami-Dade had six wastewater spills between 2020 and 2022, a total of more than 8 million gallons — 7.4 million of which was recovered — and 24 “effluent exceedances” between 2014 and 2022, which is when the water released from the sewage facility isn’t fully treated to remove all bacteria.
For those spills, DEP fined Miami-Dade $123,000, and vowed to levy additional fines for any unauthorized spills from 2022 onward.
Seriously - when is this going to stop? Address this issue - now and permanently.
And as an aside - why punish the taxpayers $123,000 by levying a fine. Punish those actually responsible - the officials - for their failure to protect us. We are the source of funding to pay the fines, not the officials. If you want real action, force the officials to properly spend to fix the funding and suspend those responsible for failing to act.
That's right - September 6, 2019 - and it is still going on. What has happened since then? Apparently nothing of substance. As I pointed out in 2019 - Update the "Days without a beach advisory sign" and reset to "ZERO"!
Why is this bothering me? Lets compare the coverage regarding the spending priorities of Miami-Dade County elected officials - Miami Herald, Friday, May 10, 2024 - Seven World Cup matches could cost Miami-Dade’s government $46 million, by Douglas Hanks. That's right, our beaches are turning into cesspools while the lavish spending continues on sports! $46 million - ask yourself how deep that $46 million would go to addressing our water issues. Find sponsors for the sports. I have yet to see a fortune 100 or 500 company sponsor a wastewater treatment plant.
Is sports really a bigger priority that addressing our environment or is this just $46 million spend on "bread and circuses" to distract from the failure to act? We need ACTION, not officials who merely "sound alarms." We have the local health department and media to sound the far-too-frequent-alarms. Action from our County Officials needs to follow the alarms - which to date has been Missing In Action.
As to the level of missing in action - as reported in the Miami Herald - Miami-Dade had six wastewater spills between 2020 and 2022, a total of more than 8 million gallons — 7.4 million of which was recovered — and 24 “effluent exceedances” between 2014 and 2022, which is when the water released from the sewage facility isn’t fully treated to remove all bacteria.
Where are the priorities (and transparency)? Our Miami-Dade County is allegedly a tourist based economy yet our County Officials have allowed our beaches to go to crap (pun intended, but it was never funny).
We need ACTION, not officials who merely "sound alarms." It hasn't changed (maybe it has changed - for the worse) Once again, I ask: Is it now required that we check both the weather and the pollution advisories before we decide to go to the beach? Is this our new normal?: Child: "Mommy, can we go to the beach today?" Parent: "Let's me check first to see if the toxin levels are acceptable." Note the use of the term "acceptable" rather than clean - yuck!
Here we are in 2024 and we are no better off than 2019.
Palmetto Bay has rules in place relating to Council discussion, public participation and decorum. Council bullying would not occur if the mayor enforced the rules. Alternatively, any member of the village council may step forward to act through a point of order where the mayor freezes and fails to act.
Let me provide a simple quote from the rules that is almost never honored by this Mayor and Council when Council Member Matson attempts to speak:
"Councilmembers
shall not interrupt another member who has the floor." (Bold emphasis added)
The rules were put in place for a reason. The ongoing chaos and toxicity is due to the failure to run meetings according to the rules.
And yes, we shouldn't even need these rules. One would think that common sense and a desire to work collaboratively would prevail, but this is sadly not the case here in Palmetto Bay.
Here are the subsections that I would direct your attention to today:
(f) Decorum. Any person making impertinent
or slanderous remarks, or who becomes boisterous, while addressing the council
may be barred from further appearance before the council by the mayor, unless
permission to continue or again address the council is granted by a majority
vote of the council. Applauding speakers shall be discouraged. Heckling or
verbal outbursts in support or opposition to a speaker, or his or her remarks,
shall be prohibited. No signs or placards shall be allowed in the council
meeting. Persons exiting the council meeting shall do so quietly. All cellular
telephones and beepers are to be silenced during the meeting. (Bold emphasis added)
Nowhere in this subsection is a member of the council excluded from the Decorum subsection. It clearly states "any person", not just a member of the public. In fact, I would argue that the mayor and/or any other member of the council has an even greater duty to maintain decorum. Set an example.
Is it really so difficult to follow these simple rules? Sadly, it is more than apparent that this mayor and council cannot.
Subsection (a) addresses comments and debate by and among the members of the village council (and by members of the village council, it necessarily includes the Mayor as well).
(a)Discussion by
councilmembers. ... A
member, once recognized by the mayor, shall direct all comments or questions on
the item being discussed to the mayor only. Councilmembers shall not engage in
cross conversation with other members or with the public. Councilmembers shall
not interrupt another member who has the floor. The mayor shall not
unreasonably withhold or delay recognition of any member of the council
desiring to speak. The mayor shall recognize other members of the council in
rotation and not call on any member a second time or subsequent time until all
members shall have had an opportunity to speak. (Bold emphasis added)
(a) Discussion by councilmembers. Discussion
by councilmembers shall be unlimited except as determined by a majority of the
council. The councilmember who sponsors an item shall be afforded the privilege
to close with rebuttal. A member, once recognized by the mayor, shall direct
all comments or questions on the item being discussed to the mayor only.
Councilmembers shall not engage in cross conversation with other members or
with the public. Councilmembers shall not interrupt another member who has the
floor. The mayor shall not unreasonably withhold or delay recognition of any
member of the council desiring to speak. The mayor shall recognize other
members of the council in rotation and not call on any member a second time or
subsequent time until all members shall have had an opportunity to speak.
(b) Questions by councilmembers. In the
event a member wishes to direct questions to another member or to the public
during a meeting, the questions shall be directed to the mayor who, in turn,
will recognize the councilmember or member of the public who wishes to answer
the specific questions. In the event a member wishes to direct a question to
the village manager or village attorney, the question shall be directed to the
manager or attorney through the mayor, who will, in turn, recognize the member.
All questions of village staff shall be made through the village manager.
(c) Public participation and discussion.
Individuals wishing to speak on matters that appear on the agenda as
"public hearings" need only to be recognized by the mayor. The public
shall be permitted to speak after the mayor opens an item for public hearing.
After the mayor closes the public hearing, only members of the council or the
administration may discuss the item.
(d) Manner and time of addressing council.
Public discussion shall be limited to three minutes maximum per person;
provided, however, the mayor may authorize an extension of time after due
consideration for the substance, content and relative importance of the
subject. The mayor may limit the amount of time allowed for public discussion.
Each person who addresses the council shall step up to the speaker's podium and
shall give his or her name, address, identify whether the person speaks on his
or her own behalf, a group of persons, or a third party. Public speakers should
avoid repetitive statements. If the person represents an organization, the
person shall also indicate the number of members in the organization, the date
of the most recent meeting of the organization's governing body, and whether
the view expressed by the speaker represents an established policy of the
organization approved by the governing board, compensation, if any, and whether
the person or any immediate family member has a personal financial interest in
the pending matter (other than compensation for speaking at the meeting). No
person other than the council and the person recognized by the mayor as having
the floor shall be permitted to enter into discussion without the approval of
the mayor. All questions from the public to the council shall be addressed
through the mayor. After a motion is made by a councilmember, no person shall
address the council without first securing the approval of the mayor.
(e) Written communications. Interested
persons or their authorized representatives may address the council by written
communications in compliance with criteria established under subsection (d)
regarding items to be considered by the council.
(f) Decorum. Any person making impertinent
or slanderous remarks, or who becomes boisterous, while addressing the council
may be barred from further appearance before the council by the mayor, unless
permission to continue or again address the council is granted by a majority
vote of the council. Applauding speakers shall be discouraged. Heckling or
verbal outbursts in support or opposition to a speaker, or his or her remarks,
shall be prohibited. No signs or placards shall be allowed in the council
meeting. Persons exiting the council meeting shall do so quietly. All cellular
telephones and beepers are to be silenced during the meeting.
Palmetto Bay is definitely not a "Bully Free Zone".
Council Member Marsha Matson is working hard - on her own - to involve the public - and it is sad that she has to go the route of an op ed piece. She can't do it alone at a meeting as she is but 1/5 of the votes of the council and cannot muster a majority for simple things like holding a town hall meetings for our fellow residents.
Shameful. This is truly the never ending story. This is your mayor and council, Palmetto Bay - and all those feel good proclamations and certificates are really just cringeworthy attempts to hide the toxic state of Palmetto Bay politics. Elections matter.
Here is opinion, her update, published online by the Community Newspapers on May 8, 2024:
I am a grandmother, who will turn 80 years old this year. I decided to spend my retirement years serving Palmetto Bay, my community. I helped found the Village as a municipality in the 1990s and early 2000s and I hold a deep affection for the Village and its residents.
So I ran for Village Council in 2018 and won. I liked making laws to help residents like reducing density in our downtown and regulating short-term rentals that disrupted quiet neighborhoods. I enjoyed it so much that I ran for re-election in 2022 and won with over 60% of the vote, the highest of any village candidate.
In 2022, the Village Council added two new Councilmembers, Vice Mayor Leanne Tellam and Councilmember Steve Cody, who formed a solid majority block with Mayor Karyn Cunningham. They set about running the village their way. I did not have a problem with that because in our country, the majority rules while the minority is respected and has a say. I sometimes disagreed with them and gave my opinion. Over time, instead of listening to differences of opinion and working together to resolve problems, the majority block became more and more intolerant of dissent. As I did not always agree with them, I became their target on Council to stamp out any hint of criticism of their policies.
In the last two years, they have intensified their efforts to stop me from asking questions and offering my opinion. You can see them in action by watching the most recent May 6 Council meeting on the Palmetto Bay Village website under public meetings: https://palmettobay.granicus.com/player/clip/1943
I know it is disturbing to witness the rough tactics the Mayor and Councilmembers use on me. Of course, it is extremely distressful for me. What they do goes far beyond politics as usual. When they perceive that I am going to say something they do not want to hear, they cut me off while speaking, talk over me until I stop, shout “out of order” to have the attorney demand I quit talking, adjourn before I can speak, ridicule me, prevent me from finishing my sentence, and call me names. They create a vivid picture of schoolyard bullies, except that they are public officials who, while knowing they are being recorded on video, verbally stomp on me. In every instance, they succeed in preventing me from talking.
I am not the only person bearing the brunt of their distaste for dissent. Mayor Cunningham, Vice Mayor Tellam, and Councilmember Cody banned the reading of resident’s emails out loud during Council meetings. Emails were the most popular way for residents to be involved in village government. When emails became more critical of them, they silenced them. They abolished the Neighborhood Protection Committee, a committee that worked to protect residents’ quality of life.
I taught government at the University of Miami for over two decades. I have a doctorate in political science. I have a good idea of how democracy is supposed to work. One of the most treasured principles of our democracy is the right of people to express their views of government leaders, especially when they disagree with what the leaders are doing. This most sacred right, enshrined in our First Amendment, is under attack in Palmetto Bay. If you find it hard to believe, I invite you to watch the May 6 Council meeting and witness the successful tactics Mayor Cunningham, Vice Mayor Tellam, and Councilmember Cody use to stop me from saying what they do not want anyone to hear. This letter is my opinion.
Wait! Who wants to make a bet?
The village Public Relations team (whether you call it PR, Publicity or PIO) pushes out media featuring Mayor Cunningham. Does anyone have any odds on whether the public information office will be fair and even handed by pushing out this council member's comments to the public?
As they say, "and that my friends, is the rest of the story."
Why is it that information is not easily accessible in
Palmetto Bay?
Palmetto Bay once had a
litigation page where concerned residents were informed as to status of ongoing
litigation, The transcripts were due to be released as the litigation had
ended. The case: 17777 OLD CUTLER ROAD,
LLC VS VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, FLORIDA ET AL, Case number: 2022-000012-AP-01,
was final, litigation was at an end, upon the denial of the pending motions for rehearing by the Third District Court of Appeal on March 15, 2024. The Mandate was issued April 4, 2024. see my prior related blog post of December 13,
2023, Court slaps down Palmetto Bay's zoning appeal. The Opinion denying the Petition
(appeal) was released December 13, 2023 (but was not final until the motions
for rehearing were resolved).
I have posted two transcripts relating to the litigation
involving the Palmetto Bay Village Center.I have transcripts for April 3, 2023, and December 18, 2023.Please click on the links to download and
read for yourself.
What Could Have Been
We could have dropped the number to as low as 389 - but that takes negotiation, and the record reflects that Mayor Cunningham and her group won't negotiate. They have delayed this issue for many years - refusing to make decisions and instead pushing this off to the courts, which conveniently provides the current mayor and the current council with more people to blame. Listen to them - read the transcripts - they blame everyone but themselves. They could have successfully defended a well managed hearing with a proper denial - but look to the July 5, 2023 opinion - it details how not to manage any zoning issue, especially one so critical to our village!
The courts will not craft a compromise deal. Its win loss - and Mayor Cunningham, and the Village lost - big! Litigation is not cheap. There is a very good reason why so many refer to litigation as the sport of kings. But hey, this is not their money. It is ours.
The PBVC issue predates the incorporation of Palmetto
Bay. I was in negotiation prior to December 5, 2018. At that time,
the owners of Palmetto Bay Village Center had agreed to preserve the
environmentally sensitive land at the front of the property and construct a
number that would have been not "the 485,"but rather, a
representative for the PBVC offered a compromise number of 450 - 470. I contend
that this was their starting point in these negotiations and the unit numbers
would have dropped lower. An ordinance proposed and passed by then Council
Member David Singer reduced the number to below 400 units. The representative
for the PBVC also mentioned in 2018 that negotiations had been ongoing for 200
-- half of the units -- to be Senior housing units. That's a HUGE offer in
regard to traffic reduction.
Now, after years of expensive litigation, the Palmetto
Bay Village Center has won the right to construct a much larger project -- with
commercial units in addition to a larger number of residential units. The
Village's refusal to negotiate (because, presumably, they wanted to be seen as
taking a tough stance against development) has led to massive increases in
development.
What was being contested (a lengthy tortured history):
Palmetto Bay held
three different hearings to get to an inartfully crafted resolution denying the
zoning application of the Palmetto Bay Village Center. These hearings were held
October 18, 2021, November 15, 2021 and January 24, 2022. The Village spent
months preparing the final order (it was not rushed). The order
denying the zoning application was not signed until March 2, 2022.
The applicants
(the owners of the Palmetto Bay Village Center - referred to in the litigation
as 17777 Old Cutler Road, LLC. Filed two actions on April 1, 2022 to
contest the denial. :
17777 OLD CUTLER
ROAD, LLC, VS VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY
Case number: 2022-006141-CA-01
and
17777 OLD CUTLER ROAD, LLC VS VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, FLORIDA ET AL
Case number: 2022-000012-AP-01 (the case discussed in this post)
Feel free to
download and review these two opinions. The opinions in these appeals
should be required reading to learn how to follow the law versus denial for the
sake of political gain.
A great interview with Hal Feldman on the MiamiHal Show - talking transportation and parks - especially the last-minute proposed Tanglewood Park, rapidly becoming known as Entanglement Park.
This proposed park has become quite controversial as of late. This specific area was discussed as part of the resident-centric Parks Master Plan process that I led in 2007. A rendering of the proposed park was discussed on the show (and posted below). There was no interest and the proposal was not moved forward in 2017. Residents adjacent to this property then began a process directed by Miami-Dade County to purchase this land. And let's be clear - this process has occurred before including two properties on the west side of 77th Avenue, across from this proposed park. Current village officials then woke up, saw that they were far behind in the process and spent $25,000 (without a procurement process) to hire experienced County lobbyists to intervene in the process in an attempt to wrest the land from the residents who had in fact followed the process.
Here is the video from the show:
Here are the photos used in the interview:
Here are photos that did not make it to the show - Google Earth overview and 2 photos taken by me of a park Miami-Dade County created in the Falls area.
