Ordinances are local laws. Following the Ordinances previously put in place would stop the chaos and go far in resolving the toxic council.

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.

See Online Sunshine - Section166.041 Procedures for adoption of ordinances and resolutions.—

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. 

Sure signs of lack of County priorities - funding the big games, while playing games and failing our health by failing to fund our environment.

Anyone read this article? Its a must read. State fines Miami-Dade for leaky sewage system, orders plan to stop spills, by Alex Harris and Doug Hanks, May 11, 2024.

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. 

PRIOR RELATED POST -  September 6, 2019, It's "Deja Vu, all over again". Or is it Groundhogs Day in Miami-Dade County? Select Miami-Dade beaches have again failed to meet Health quality standards. Clean this up and promote clean water during Super Bowl Week

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.

Elections matter.

Our environment and health should matter as well.

There are rules to prevent toxic meetings - but this mayor and council deliberately choose not to follow the rules. Today we look at Sec. 2-49. Council discussion, public participation and decorum.

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)

 

Sec. 2-49. Council discussion, public participation and decorum.

(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.

(Ord. No. 03-11, § 1, 9-8-2003)

Palmetto Bay News - Op-Ed: Rudeness and bullying should not be the norm in Palmetto Bay By Marsha Matson, Village of Palmetto Bay Councilmember, District 3 -May 8, 2024

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:

Op-Ed: Rudeness and bullying should not be the norm in Palmetto Bay
By Marsha Matson, Village of Palmetto Bay Councilmember, District 3

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."

PRIOR RELATED POST

Back to my opinion: It is unfortunate that this is far from an isolated event. This toxic bullying  has been going on for far too long. Please see a prior related post of October 11, 2021, Opinion: "Nevertheless, she persisted". Did this lead to a “Code Red” being called on Marsha? Cringe-worthy is the only way to describe the beat down administered on Dr. Matson at the October regular council meeting. Was this all because Dr. Matson wanted to restore just a scintilla of transparency into Palmetto Bay government?

Interesting - MUST - read - transcripts received relating to 2 attorney client meetings - the insider discussion of the Palmetto Bay Village Center litigation.

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.

See: Tuesday, October 16, 2018, About last night (Mon. 10/15/2018) - I continue to work for you to reduce development. The council votes best tell the story.

What Is Now?

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)

Things did not go well for the Village of Palmetto Bay before the Appellate Division of the 11th Circuit Court.  The Appellate Division ruled against Palmetto Bay in a strongly worded 31 page opinion that reversed the denial of the PBVC zoning decision.  Palmetto Bay officials sought a rehearing of the opinion, but fared no better in a revised, but just as lengthy 31 page opinion released July 5, 2023.

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.

When its too deep to ride through

JUST FOR FUN - a replay of the 9-25-2021 gravel adventure.

Who from Palmetto Bay wants to join in?

Dora and Malcolm featured in carrying their bikes through thigh deep water - gravel riding Saturday, 9/25/2021

Drawing the Green Line - environmentally friendly and practical proposals for the Tanglewood (entanglement) Park

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.

Thank you Hal!

Court slaps down Palmetto Bay's zoning appeal -- more units for Old Cutler Road

DENIED.  The Third District Court of Appeals ruled against the Village of Palmetto Bay.  Having lost - badly - in the efforts on appeal (review via Petitions for Cert for those who want to be sticklers for technicalities) - does the Village have any bargaining power left to negotiate?  

Read the Order released Wednesday, December 13, 2023.

What Could Have Been

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.  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.

See: Tuesday, October 16, 2018, About last night (Mon. 10/15/2018) - I continue to work for you to reduce development. The council votes best tell the story.

What Is Now?

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)

See PRIOR RELATED POSTS

Things did not go well for the Village of Palmetto Bay before the Appellate Division of the 11th Circuit Court.

The Appellate Division ruled against Palmetto Bay in a strongly worded 31 page opinion that reversed the denial of the PBVC zoning decision.

Palmetto Bay officials sought a rehearing of the opinion, but fared no better in a revised, but just as lengthy 31 page opinion released July 5, 2023.

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.

The Palmetto Bay Village Center won rounds 2 A & B [the first level "appeal, original opinion (2 A) and rehearing (2 B)].

Palmetto Bay now was tasked with appealing. Its Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed before the 3rd DCA contesting the Opinion of the Appellate Division of July 5, 2023, which reversed the Village Resolution 2022-05 denying the application. 

The legal grandstanding has floundered. The legal efforts have served only as an expensive waste of tax payer dollars meant more for political grandstanding than actually impacting the Palmetto Bay Village Center application.  It is time to get back to negotiation.

Why did this current mayor - and the current council - refuse to negotiate? Are they scared or simply unskilled?

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.

See: Tuesday, October 16, 2018, About last night (Mon. 10/15/2018) - I continue to work for you to reduce development. The council votes best tell the story.

More ready about the facts, accurate history and exposing the outright lies relating the the current fix that the current mayor and counsel find themselves in (to be rescued by taxpayer dollars) -See January 27, 2020, Fact Checking the Palmetto Bay Village Center issue. Facts, not conjured up rumors and outright lies. The facts about the Palmetto Bay Village Center. Its not 485, its never been 485.

Final thoughts (a bit silly, but it makes the point):   My advice to the current Mayor, Council Members and Staff: ‘when in a hole (and mayor, you are deep in this hole) STOP DIGGING!’ See the Law of Holes.

From Wikipedia:

When it is said, "if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging," it is because digging a hole makes it deeper and therefore harder to get out of. More generally, the adage advises how one should solve problems of their own making.

The second law of holes is commonly known as: "when you stop digging, you are still in a hole."

I am here to help.

Updates on duck trapper gone wild - confrontation leads to violence in Plantation, Broward County FL.

As reported on the WSVN Newscast: The City of Plantation said they would not authorize trappers to go onto somebody’s private property to remove ducks. 

What about Palmetto Bay, when are we going to hear such a statement from the Palmetto Bay officials? Will continued silence from officials lead to self-help by residents or even violence? 

There have been plenty of complaints posted on social media in Palmetto Bay, complaints of trappers going onto private property and even comments regarding threats and aggression from the trappers made to those who try to intervene or complain.  

The trappers in these news reports appear bold when armed with a weapon and against the elderly, but it won’t be long before they trespass onto property where the owner will be better prepared or a younger neighbor or family member rushes to their aid. The trappers (or the resident) will be sorry when one or the other stands their ground. 

Both news report aired on Monday evening, May 15, 2023:

News presentation 1 - Channel 10, Miami, Rosh Lowe reporting (Click link to view the both the video and text reports): Man, 71, left bloody, battered after trying to stop beloved ducks from being removed from property

PLANTATION, Fla. – An elderly Broward County resident said he was punched in the face when he tried to stop people from removing ducks from his neighborhood.

Art Cosgrove told Local 10 News he and his wife have been feeding the ducks for years, but others in the Plantation neighborhood feel the animals are a nuisance and want them gone.

Cosgrove said he was beat up by the people removing the ducks.

“I was on the ground when they were kicking and hitting me with a stick,” he said.

The 71-year-old said he also took a right cross to the face. In video of the incident, he can be heard yelling for them to give him the ducks.

Cosgrove was hospitalized, left a bloody mess and needing staples in his head for one of his wounds. ... 

Follow the headline link to read the complete Local 10 news report or CLICK HERE

 

News presentation 2 - WSVN 7, Joe Roetz reporting, 2 men attempting to capture ducks from Plantation home accused of beating homeowner when told to leave property

... 

Eventually, one of the men grabbed a net and went after Cosgrove, striking him over and over.

“I am trying to wrestle the other guy off me to get up, and that’s when I got racked in the head a few times with the stick,” Cosgrove said.

The end result was a lacerated head and an apparent black eye.

Cosgrove now has two staples in his skull.

“They tried putting in seven but they kept hitting the skull,” Cosgrove said.

Those men took off.

Cosgrove said he filed a report with Plantation Police with a video from a neighbor after he found out the men told officers down the street they were the victims.

“I wanna file charges against these SOBs,” Cosgrove said. “They assaulted me. I didn’t touch them, and they’re saying I assaulted him? BS.”

The City of Plantation said they would not authorize trappers to go onto somebody’s private property to remove ducks.

Cosgrove claimed that his HOA also did not authorize the man to do this. (Bold emphasis added)

Follow the headline link to read the complete WSVN 7 report or CLICK HERE

Statement of Eugene Flinn regarding management of wildlife in Coral Reef Park: The truth about the CRP wildlife removal

No Muscovy ducks or Egyptian geese were harmed during any of my three terms as Mayor of Palmetto Bay. This is readily apparent from the receipts for animal removal, which I received from the Village, and which I am attaching. The Village and its council members are well aware that they did not occur during my tenure as mayor, assuming they can read a calendar. 

 For reference, I served on the Palmetto Bay Council from its creation in 2002 until shortly prior to Election Day, 2010. I then took office again in December, 2014 and served until December 4, 2018. I was not in office from November 8, 2010 to December, 2014 or after December 4, 2018. This is when the geese removals took place. 

Removal Receipts During the Stanczyk Administration 

The current Palmetto Manager presented some police and injury reports at the April 17 Council meeting, alleging that the Egyptian Geese (not Muscovy Ducks) were responsible for aggressive behavior. Apparently there were also attorneys who wrote at least one demand letter (I do not know if any suit was filed or it was settled pre-suit, if at all). The receipts for removals that were discussed Monday, April 17, which appeared to cover the following dates: 11-17-2010, 1-03-2011, 4-11-2011, 11-1-2013, 12-5-2013, 1-3-2014 and 4-15-2014 (for service dates of 1-24-14 & 4-16-2014). 

I have undertaken additional research; trying to find the receipts for these alleged trappers. I have itemized the receipts below. The earliest was 11-17-2010 - that removal occurred after my last meeting as Mayor of Palmetto Bay (Second Term). Shelley Stanczyk was sworn in as mayor at the following meeting. She also sat on the council next to me from 2006 – 2010 and served as mayor from 2010 to December 2014. The next receipt was dated April 11, 2011, followed by 11/1/13, 12/5/13, 1/3/2014 and 4/15/2014. 

None of these removals were for Muscovy Ducks. All were for the Egyptian Geese. All but one were during times when I was not in office. I will explain further about removals during my time in office. 

The Only Removals During the Flinn Administration Were Humane Removals/Relocations 

As stated previously, I was not in office from November 2010 through December 2014. 

Back to my first two terms, I was involved in one wildlife re-location with Todd Hardwick; but that was removing Wally the gator from the Perrine Wayside Park (Current Dog Park). I was assured that the gator was to be relocated (and he did qualify for relocation due to his or her size). That capture was featured on Animal Planet, the episode airing in January 2005. It was interesting that I was not made aware of the capture in advance. I was advised by a Miami Herald reporter (pictured above left) who advised me just before it happened. As you can see, I was dressed for court, not gator capture. But I did end up with a story for the hearing which was delayed so I could ensure that the gator was not harmed! 

 I did find a reference of an opossum removal at Coral Reef Park dated 12-11-2009. I was mayor at that time. I do not ever recall being advised of any opossum removal. I would love to hear what it did wrong. Possums are good guys. Perhaps the removal was more to remove a sick or an injured possum or to get it out of a vent or closet rather than a vicious possum running amuck in the park. Regardless, it was not part of an ongoing mission to eradicate opossums. 

I returned to office (Term 3) in December of 2014. Geese were removed at CRP park, but it ended in 2015. Again, I am looking for the reports/documentation relating to parks. Please note the difference in removal that occurred during my Third Term as noted in email of 4-14-2015 from Todd Hardwick of Pesky Critters to CRP Manager Luis Tejeda: 

Pesky Critters can remove geese at Coral Reef Park at a cost of $175 per animal removed. Animals will be placed in captivity. 

Thank you, 

Todd Hardwick 

(Bold emphasis added) 

I take Todd Hardwick at his word. These animals were not slaughtered. To the contrary, they were placed in captivity. 

The removals stopped cold in 2015 – that is until July 29, 2021, as indicated on the village supplied receipts. The Village has not documented any Muscovy duck removals occurring until recently, at least 3 years after my third term ended. 

But there is more. What concerns me is an 11-19-2021 removal of a fox at Coral Reef Park. What did the fox do? It was probably trying to make a go of it in the 5 acre nature preserve at the park - a place where native animals (such as foxes) should have sanctuary. And, by the way, foxes are predators of Muscovy ducks. Both the ducks and the eggs. Perhaps removal of the fox upset a natural balance going on at the park, keeping the duck population manageable - I cannot recall any complaints from 2015 to November 2018 when I last held office. 

Receipts (provided through the Village of Palmetto Bay) (attached): 

11-17-2010     $ 750.00     10 Geese         Pesky Critters 

04-11-2011     $ 675.00     12 Geese         Pesky Critters 

11-01-2013     $ 572.00      7 Geese         Miami Animal Removal 

12-05-2013     $ 218.00     Swan Goose       Miami Animal Removal 

01-03-2014     $ 236.00     10 Geese         Miami Animal Removal 

04-15-2014     $ 413.00      7 Geese         Miami Animal Removal 

04-15-2015     $ 525.00      3 Geese         Pesky Critters 

04-24-2015     $2,275.00    13 Geese         Pesky Critters – 

                                             SPECIAL NOTE see email 

                                             of 4-14-2015 

SPECIAL NOTE email of 4-14-2015 from Todd Hardwick of Pesky Critters to CRP Manager Luis Tejeda: 

Pesky Critters can remove geese at Coral Reef Park at a cost of $175 per animal removed. Animals will be placed in captivity. 

Thank you, 

Todd Hardwick

(Bold emphasis added) 

Don't leave out this 2021 removal:

07-21-2021     $ 350.00      2 Geese         Pesky Critters 

Please note the difference through price and ultimate resolution regarding the wildlife: 

$ 175.00 for Pesky Critters – the geese were humanely removed and placed into captivity 

$   45.00 for current trappers of Muscovy Ducks – slaughtered and photos of dead ducks circulated. 

Also see the records I pulled from the Palmetto Bay check register. (pictured below)

I am available to answer any follow-up questions regarding this at (305) 302-3713. However, my blanket statement is that any statement that ducks or geese were removed and killed during my terms of office is a slanderous falsehood, as the receipts clearly show this was not the case. 

This is not a political issue. The issue is how our wildlife is treated in Palmetto Bay.