Showing posts with label Bridges. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bridges. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 29, 2024

87th Avenue Bridge Litigation - Volunteer attorneys Norman M. Waas, Esq, and Jessica M. Hernandez, Esq. filed a motion to expedite appeal.

The reality is setting in for residents on all sides of the canal. As many are aware, Miami-Dade County has started moving forward on the actual construction of the bridge as of Tuesday, May 28, 2024.  This generated mixed reaction from opposing sides – a huge sigh of relief and celebration from those who have fought for the bridge versus significant angst and anxiety from those in opposition. 

The only statement from village leaders to date was posted on Facebook:

Please be aware that the contractor has mobilized at the construction site for Miami-Dade County’s SW 87 Avenue bridge project. The Village will be working with the contractor and the County to minimize any disruption to residents in the affected area. We will also provide updates on the project as they become available. (bold emphasis added).

I haven’t seen any other statements made by or on behalf of our village counsel regarding the commencement of the bridge construction. Please feel free to notify me of what ever information you have seen or heard.

Action in the form of a motion to expedite appeal was filed Wednesday, May 29, 2024. The motion to expedite appeal was filed on behalf of the Appellants, the Palmetto Bay residents in opposition to the 87 Avenue bridge.  These residents have been represented by volunteer counsel - Norman M. Waas, Esq, and Jessica M. Hernandez, Esq, of the local law firm FALK, WAAS, SOLOMON, MENDLESTEIN & DAVIS, P.A. The village is usually represented by a Village Attorney, or one of the special counsels listed as eligible to represent the village in such matters.

The rules of appellate procedure do provide for situations where a court may expedite the appeal.  The motion was filed on May 29, 2024, arguing that:

Public interest supports the appropriateness of expedited review of this matter. It is indisputable that the bridge project will affect the lives of residents in the Village of Palmetto Bay. Those opposed to the bridge—including Appellants—are concerned that increased traffic in the neighborhoods along 87th Avenue, especially north of the bridge, will badly damage the character of the neighborhoods and pose unnecessary traffic and safety risks.

Kudos to both Norman M. Waas, Esq, and Jessica M. Hernandez, Esq. who have been carrying a huge burden without compensation on behalf of the Village of Palmetto Bay, who is listed as the first named party to this appeal. Both attorneys should be recognized for their service, regardless of anyone’s position on the bridge.

I will keep you up to date on how this matter progresses.

Other related documents:

I am providing access to the briefs filed to date.

The Initial Brief of the Appellants (E-filed April 12, 2024) (those in opposition to the bridge, filed by volunteer counsel - Norman M. Waas, Esq, and Jessica M. Hernandez, Esq

The Answer Brief of the Appellee (e-filed May 13, 2024) Filed by Miami-Dade County.

The Reply Brief of the Appellants (E-filed May 28, 2024) (those in opposition to the bridge, filed by volunteer counsel - Norman M. Waas, Esq, and Jessica M. Hernandez, Esq

Thursday, September 22, 2022

BREAKING NEWS - Judge DENIES Miami-Dade County's Motion to Dismiss complaint - bridge litigation moves forward.

I just received this order denying the County's Motion to Dismiss - on all counts. The order was rendered at 6:19 PM on Thursday, September 22, 2022.

I will review this three page order and opine on it at a later date, but for now you can read the full three page order (CLICK HERE).



Wednesday, June 22, 2022

Additional 87th Bridge litigation update - Hearing date set - Response to Motion to Dismiss filed (link to document provided)

A reader provided me with Palmetto Bay's Response in Opposition to the County's Motion to Dismiss [this document was filed at 6:54 PM last night - (6/21), but is not yet posted to the public online docket].  CLICK HERE to download and view this 29 page response.

The hearing on the County's Motion to Dismiss has been scheduled for 3:30 PM, July 11, 2022.

Attorney Norman Waas filed discovery on behalf of Palmetto Bay:  Miami-Dade County has been served with Interrogatories (written questions to be answered in writing under oath) as well as Request for Admissions. 

June 17, 2022: The court rendered an order requiring the parties to prepare and file a comprehensive case management report (pursuant to Administrative Order AO 21-09). This report is presently due no later than Friday July 8, 2022. The report will provide significant details to aid the court in moving this case to resolution. (follow link above to view complete update)

Tuesday, June 21, 2022

87th Bridge litigation update - No hearing yet to resolve the County's Motion to Dismiss

87th Avenue Bridge litigation update - VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, FLORIDA, CAROLINE HETU, AND CRAIG WOISCHWILL v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 2022-003627-CA-30.  

June 17, 2022: The court rendered an order requiring the parties to prepare and file a comprehensive case management report (pursuant to Administrative Order AO 21-09). This report is presently due no later than Friday July 8, 2022. The report will provide significant details to aid the court in moving this case to resolution. 

CLICK HERE to view the blank sample  case management report that was provided in the June 17 Case Management Order.

A case management hearing was held on June 17, 2022.  I did attend as an interested observer. The hearing was held via zoom virtual platform. 

IMPORTANT NOTE: Court proceedings are open to the public in Florida with few exceptions and then proceedings may be closed only if there is no reasonable alternative to closure; closure being the least restrictive form available.  

Results of the case management hearing held on June 17, 2022: No substantive items were resolved. The parties were directed to contact the court on the following Tuesday (6/21/2022) and attempt to secure an early hearing date on the pending motion to dismiss. the court also notified the attorneys that this case was put on one hour standby; that all parties should be ready to argue the motion to dismiss within an hours notice (experience tells me the court would attempt to provide more notice as scheduling permits) in the event that sufficient time becomes available on the court hearing docket.

The lawsuit is progressing slowly.  I had commented previously that this case may be different for Palmetto Bay due to appearances by Palmetto Bay Resident Norman Waas as a volunteer attorney on behalf of the Village of Palmetto Bay.  As I stated before, and without reservation, he is a highly respected litigator. He has incentive as a resident who has opposed the bridging of 87th avenue, adding his passion and extensive litigation experience. 

It was also announced at this hearing that Miami-Dade County has schedule an August 2022 groundbreaking for the 87th Avenue Bridge project.

I assume, or at least it is my hope, that the public will receive a full briefing on the status of this lawsuit at the July Regular Village Council Meeting.

Prior related posts:

April 8, 2022, The Weekend Read - the Palmetto Bay bridge litigation. Important updates. Links to important documents supplied

Background information is also provided in a prior related post of February 4, 2022, Mediation ended in an impasse – will the mayor and council file the lawsuit? Key local attorneys are ready to step in for residents in opposition to the bridge. as well as January 20, 2022, Miami-Dade County will hold the Joint meeting with Palmetto Bay today, Thursday, January 20, 2022, at 12:45 PM. There is a public comment section listed on the agenda.

Friday, April 8, 2022

The Weekend Read - the Palmetto Bay bridge litigation. Important updates. Links to important documents supplied

Palmetto Bay has filed a lawsuit against Miami-Dade County to stop the bridge. Miami-Dade field its motion to dismiss on April 6, 2022. This lawsuit is styled VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, FLORIDA, CAROLINE HETU, AND CRAIG WOISCHWILL v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 2022-003627-CA-30. I have put together a Google Drive folder where you can access the main documents filed to date (CLICK HERE). Or click the specific links directing you to view the Amended Complaint filed March 7, 2022 as well as the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint filed by Miami-Dade County on April 6, 2022.  

Background can be found in a prior related post of February 4, 2022, Mediation ended in an impasse – will the mayor and council file the lawsuit? Key local attorneys are ready to step in for residents in opposition to the bridge. as well as January 20, 2022, Miami-Dade County will hold the Joint meeting with Palmetto Bay today, Thursday, January 20, 2022, at 12:45 PM. There is a public comment section listed on the agenda.

Get the facts, not the spin. The documentation is there for all of us to read. I need to take a very deep dive into all the litigation before I offer up any comment. 

Waiting to see how this lawsuit goes.  I had commented previously that this case may be different for Palmetto Bay due to probable appearances by Palmetto Bay Resident Norman Waas and local attorney David Winker. It is my understanding that attorney David Winker is no longer involved in this issue and that is a loss for those in opposition of the bridge.  HOWEVER - Attorney Norman Waas remains committed to this current lawsuit.  As I stated before, and without reservation, he is a highly respected litigator. He has incentive as a resident who has opposed the bridging of 87th avenue. Passion and extensive litigation experience. 

I assume this lawsuit was discussed in detail at the April Regular Village Council meeting. Was it? (That is not a rhetorical question, was it discussed?). 

Stay tuned.




Friday, February 4, 2022

Mediation ended in an impasse – will the mayor and council file the lawsuit? Key local attorneys are ready to step in for residents in opposition to the bridge.

Update on the 87th Avenue Bridge dispute.  The mediation held February 3, 2002, ended in an impasse (no issues resolved). This is significant. This means that the dispute resolution requirements have been met and the Village of Palmetto Bay officials may now proceed with the long promised lawsuit.

Another lawsuit? Well, yes, but this case may be different for Palmetto Bay due to probable appearances by Palmetto Bay Resident Norman Waas and local attorney David Winker.

Both are excellent attorneys, well suited for this cause. Attorney David Winker has been retained by various residents in opposition to the bridge.  Attorney Winker has extensive experience protecting the rights of aggrieved residents in actions taken by local government. Winker has recently achieved a huge win in a case against the City of Coral Gables in what is known simply as the WAWA case; a victory for the residents in an action where they claimed Coral Gables officials approved the WAWA, through a process described as expedited and without proper notice (sound familiar?).

Attorney Norman Waas is a highly respected litigator. He has incentive as a resident who has opposed the bridging of 87 th avenue. Passion and extensive litigation experience. 

The team of attorneys Winker and Waas will drive this lawsuit and should work well for their respective interests / clients in this matter.

I assume this lawsuit will be discussed at the February Regular Village Council meeting, Monday, February 7, with the lawsuit possibly being filed by the end of this coming week. 



Thursday, January 20, 2022

Miami-Dade County will hold the Joint meeting with Palmetto Bay today, Thursday, January 20, 2022, at 12:45 PM. There is a public comment section listed on the agenda.

 Today is a big day in regard to the 87th Avenue bridge issue. The Palmetto Bay Council and Board of County Commissioners will meet in a joint meeting today, Thursday, January 20, 2022. at 12:45 PM

The agenda does include "reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard" (Public Comment). (CLICK HERE) to view the official agenda.

4A JOINT STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
 

4A  

  220108 Joint Meeting/Workshop  

  ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE JOINT STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES (ATTACHED TO THIS AGENDA) RELATED TO THE CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY AGAINST MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PURSUANT TO VILLAGE RESOLUTION NO. 2021-18  

5A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE HEARD
 

6 DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS  

6A  

  220105 Discussion Item  

  CONSIDERATION OF THE JOINT STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL AND THE BOARD  

6B  

  220106 Discussion Item  

  DISCUSSION OF ANY RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTE  

6C  

  220107 Discussion Item  

  CONSIDERATION BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL AND THE BOARD OF ANY PROPOSED MOTIONS FOR A CONCEPTUAL RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCEEDINGS, OR IF NO CONCEPTUAL RESOLUTION IS REACHED, THE GOVERNING BODIES ARE REQUIRED TO SCHEDULE MEDIATION TO BE CONDUCTED BY THEIR REPRESENTATIVES TO CONTINUE TO SEEK RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT  

7A ADJOURNMENT

Thursday, December 2, 2021

Construction of the 87th Avenue Bridge - coming to Palmetto Bay in Fall, 2022, at least per this County Fact Sheet

The information provided in this fact sheet do not appear to be consistent with the actions planned by the current members of the Palmetto Bay council. This project is moving forward, at least according to this update:

Fall 2022 - we are in the last month of 2021.

How to register and participate: Virtual Public Meeting Regarding the SW 87th Avenue Bridge Project, Wed., 12-15-2021, 6:30 to 8:00 PM

Updated information / link to register for the meeting.

The Miami-Dade County Department of Transportation and Public Works has scheduled a VIRTUAL public meeting to discuss the SW 87th Avenue Bridge over the C-100 Canal project.

Miami-Dade County has scheduled the meeting Palmetto Bay officials have declined to have –a detailed public meeting on the 87 Avenue bridge. The advertisement was posted in the Miami Herald on Page 12A, Wednesday, December 1, 2021.

As stated in the meeting notice, "the project consists of the Design and Construction of a new bridge that will provide vehicle travel lanes, dedicated bike lanes with physical raised separation from vehicle traffic, curb & gutter and sidewalk in both directions, northbound and southbound. The project scope includes a new roadway, storm water drainage system, signing and pavement markings, bridge lighting, fencing and landscaping along the project."

Furthermore, the meeting notice states that, "The objective of the project is to provide connectivity for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians along SW 87th Avenue and to improve traffic network along the SW 87th Avenue corridor within the Village of Palmetto Bay. funding for his project will be provided from the Road Impact Fees of District 5, pursuant to Section 33E of the Code of Miami-Dade County."

Please use the links below for additional information and to register for the Zoom meeting. For additional information from Miami-Dade County concerning the project, please email DTPWOutreach@miamidade.gov


Note - photo above is not the actual rendering for the bridge currently in design. 


SPECIAL NOTE: Thank you Miami-Dade officials for scheduling a meaningful public meeting. See my prior post of October 4, 2021, OPINION: It is time for this mayor and council to come clean and hold a proper town hall update. Residents' voices should matter. Come out of the shadows on the bridge. - Residents' voices should matter, but is has become a mere a catch phrase here in Palmetto Bay since December 2018.. 

Wednesday, December 1, 2021

Miami-Dade County DTPW sets a critical Virtual Public Meeting regarding the 87th Avenue bridge - set for December 15, 2021, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Miami-Dade County has scheduled the meeting Palmetto Bay officials have declined to have –a detailed public meeting on the 87 Avenue bridge. The advertisement is posted below. Miami Herald subscribers can view this Miami-Dade County advertisement on Page 12A, Miami Herald, Wednesday, December 1, 2021.

This meeting didn’t just pop up overnight. I am not sure why it was not discussed by the current mayor and council members at the Palmetto Bay Special Council meetings held Monday, November 29. Perhaps they were caught by surprise at the public notice in the Wednesday paper (although advertisement deadlines required that this advertisement be submitted days prior to the Monday meetings). Unfortunately, the current Palmetto Bay administration appears to prefer to restrict information rather than promote robust public discussions.

Regardless – who should attend? (I bet you, the reader, meets at list one of those listed below):

·       Those concerned (for and/or against) the bridge. 
· Cyclists who want input as to the planned dedicated bike lanes (including, not just for the bridge, but for all of 87 avenue). 
·       Those interested in connectivity for golf carts.
·       Pedestrians (who plan on walking this section – to see what protective walking areas the County has planned as they are not included in ‘dedicated’ bike lanes).
·       Those interested in ensuring that drought resistant native plants will be used for landscaping.
·       Those interested in this project adding value to the area (more than ‘just a bridge’ – the additional amenities).

Note the project will include lighting, fencing and landscaping - all of which will impact the immediate area.

Also note: This is a Miami-Dade County planned project, so we want to watch this project to ensure that it does not become another 136th Street MEGA sidewalk fiasco as planned by Palmetto Bay officials.

Also note - the planned amenities are those planned by Miami-Dade County and were never mentioned or sought by Palmetto Bay Officials during the many months of negotiations were held on the proposed Interlocal A

More information (for those who truly want to be ‘in the loop’ on this matter: email: DTPWOutreach@miamidade.gov


Monday, 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?

She was warned. "Nevertheless, she persisted" and now we have to wonder who called the ‘Code Red’ on Council Woman Marsha Matson? Dr. Matson believes that we, the people, can handle the truth and wants affected residents to be included in the process, rather than merely voicing ok or objections after the proposed Interlocal agreement is a 'done deal'.

Dr. Matson should have seen it coming. After all, she revealed that the Manager advised her that her fellow council members were angry with her (CLICK HERE to read her e-mail or CLICK HERE to read the transcript of her appearance with Michael Miller of the Community Newspapers ).  Was it speculation or fear? Regardless that anger played out in the late hours of the October village council meeting when she was at the receiving end of what appeared to many to be a “Code Red” – a beat down for daring to break an unwritten chain of command in requesting a legitimate and interactive town hall meeting. (There is no such chain of command, by the way. Members of the Village Council always had access to the public through scheduled Town Hall meetings - that it until now, or so it seems)

What’s a Code Red? When many people hear the term "code red," they immediately think of the popular movie A Few Good Men.

As portrayed in that movie, a "Code Red" refers to a form of extrajudicial punishment — a type of punishment that’s carried out without a court’s oversight or any form of legal approval. The code red was a major plot point of the 1992 film A Few Good Men, where a character dies after receiving a code red. In the movie, the motive for the “Code Red” was retaliation for the young Marine violating an order of silence of the commanding officer. Hmmm, that sounds familiar as some suspect that motive for the October council meeting beat down was anger by 3 of the 4 other council members over Dr. Matson violating an unwritten rule of silence as to the bridge negotiation. How you might ask? By daring to ask for a public noticed, publicly held meeting where the veil of silence would be lifted on the 87 avenue bridge fiasco and, (horrors!) the affected residents would actually have input on what happens to street within Palmetto Bay before it is voted on. Dr. Matson's plans were not for mere comments, but an actual live forum with give and take interaction. You know, how town hall meetings were held prior to this current mayor and council.

But Noooooooo. The decorum really went out the window that night as council members took their turns voicing their displeasure at Dr. Matson. This should not have occurred. Read the decorum rules.

The decorum rules are simple. Really, a dignified council should be able to adhere to Village Code 2-45 concerning Decorum: 

All speakers must address their remarks to the mayor, speak in a dignified and courteous manner, and avoid admonishing individual members of the public, council and representatives of the village.

(bold emphasis added)

Fellow residents reached out to me who were embarrassed by how Council Woman Matson was treated. One specifically asked me "What do you think about Marsha’s treatment at the council meeting Monday night?  Council comments especially

What do I think? In my opinion, it was shameful, unbecoming and textbook examples of blatant violations of the decorum ordinance. As Mayor, I championed both the original decorum ordinance as well as an update that was attached to each and every agenda. Currently published with each agenda is the following statement that all members of the village council agree to abide to:

WE, THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, HEREBY COMMIT OURSELVES TO MAINTAINING CIVILITY IN OUR PUBLIC AND POLITICAL DISCOURSE AND PLEDGE TO THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES:

• We will respect the right of all citizens in our community to hold different opinions;

• We will avoid rhetoric intended to humiliate or question the wisdom of those whose opinions are different from ours;

We will strive to understand differing perspectives;

• We will choose our words carefully;

• We will speak truthfully without accusation and we will avoid distortion;

• We will speak out against violence, prejudice, and incivility in all of their forms, whenever and wherever they occur.

(bold emphasis added)

These words have become meaningless under the current mayor and village council who engage in what can only be termed as shameful behavior directly and through proxies. Examples exceed the apparent code red beat down of their own, Dr. Matson, at the regular council meeting. Examples include juvenile attempts to give cute little code or nicknames to those who disagree with them, even publishing a strangely irrelevant video actually played as part of an official council meeting.  This really is one of those ‘you can’t make this stuff up’ moments. Members of this council, under this current mayor, often act as wannabe elementary school yard bullies. This is all yet another in a long series of events where they say one thing that sounds great, but act otherwise in defiance – an ultimate act of passive aggressiveness.

Private meetings held, not open to the average resident. Interesting note: Another thing I learned from watching the video is that the current mayor has been talking to a select few (one family was identified), who also were her main campaign supporters. This begs the question, why not include everyone? This is one goal achieved through Dr. Matson's request for a town hall, everyone has an equal chance to be heard rather than those village insiders who have special relationships and special access to the mayor.  Can we have a list of those meetings as well as the substance of what was discussed or agreed to?  I'm betting that this disclosure wont happen)

Though I have a long history of disagreements with Dr. Matson; I do also share items of agreement with her. Keep persisting Dr. Matson. It will take a change in mayor and at least 2 members of this village council, but the fight to restore transparency will eventually succeed.

My personal message to Dr. Marsha Matson, Council Member, District 3: Transparency and good governance in Palmetto Bay is a worthy fight. Don’t fear their angry words, proxy email attacks, or their juvenile attack videos or characters.

I also want to thank Patrick Fiore, Council Member, District One, who was the lone ally for transparency, who stood with Dr. Matson that night. He too believes that this is an issue of great public importance where residents should be a part of, not excluded from the substantive discussions of this process. 

Tuesday, October 5, 2021

I am very disappointed. No meaningful public input for Palmetto Bay in regards to the ongoing 87th Av bridge fiasco. I believe our residents have something to offer.

Denial of public input speaks to the state of Palmetto Bay’s lack of transparency. When a fight isn’t a fight and when elected officials are so arrogant that they think the public has nothing to offer. 

My opinion? Obviously they just want to bury it and move on to their (meaning our) next fiasco.

All they want to do is package the same offers made by the County back when the bridge was fought off in 2017 and claim victory. It was their missteps and combative attitude toward the County, failure to follow through on the agreements on traffic modifications that led to this bridge being revived and rolled over upon this council. But wait, the County offered back then to fund everything 100%. However, Palmetto Bay officials, high off their first-ever global tax increase, now have even more of our money to burn and are actually offering to have Palmetto Bay contribute to costs on this County project. 

This seems like mitigation and I remember being successful in ending mitigation. 

FAIR QUESTIONS: 

Why is the public being denied an opportunity to present their case? Commenting at a manager held meeting with the county amounts to little more than cheering or jeering from the sidelines. Comments do not equate to an open two-way dialogue. 

It is amazing that two of the three members of this council earned law degrees yet fail to see the value of meeting with their clients (in this case the impacted residents, on all sides of the issue) before they try to negotiate. The public certainly would have done a better job on recent fiascos borne of this mayor and council including (but certainly not limited to):

  • The mega sidewalk on SW 136 Street that no one asked for
  • The never ending Franjo road project
  • The Palmetto Park Road project, started under this mayor then abruptly halted far from completion
  • The Coral Reef Park Bridge resulting in loss of tree canopy
  • The barely there parking lot lighting at the Coral Reef Park Tennis Center

… need I go on?

Public input would be valuable and would assist in working with the County, but perhaps this is what the current mayor and council fear.

This mayor and council would rather have a poor product than actually involve the project and have to share credit.

That’s a shame and this ill-advised lack of public input will lead to the 87 Avenue bridge being worse that it could have been for all concerned.

Monday, October 4, 2021

OPINION: It is time for this mayor and council to come clean and hold a proper town hall update. Residents' voices should matter. Come out of the shadows on the bridge.

Residents' voices should matter, but it is merely a catch phrase here in Palmetto Bay. 

Why does this matter continue to move forward without any serious resident input? Why don't their voices matter? is raised this issue on May 18, 2021, Any updates on the 87th Avenue Bridge "fight"? Why are village officials not holding any public stakeholder town halls? Palmetto Bay officials have NOT responded positively since that post and instead have only 'doubled down' to squelch any input from those who will be most affected.

Why has transparency and public input become so toxic for the current set of Palmetto Bay elected officials and staff? Do current village leaders really that arrogant that they have all the answers? Believe me, they don't and that was demonstrated for everyone to see at the special council meeting of September 23, 2021.

The best decisions are those that are made with public input, in the public, not those made on behalf of others.

Why do Palmetto Bay officials opposing a public meeting to hear resident's concerns?

Palmetto Bay Council Member Dr. Marsha Matson, Council Member, District 3, apparently made the mistake of trying to look out for resident input and tried to set up a town hall meeting (Note that previous councils were pro-resident input, but not this current group - save one).  She is facing an internal firestorm that she has termed bullying. 

I am shocked and dismayed at the level of bickering and lack of civility that is ongoing within the current Palmetto Bay administration – I have reviewed the email of Dr. Marsha Matson, Council Member, District 3. I simply cannot understand why she has been cornered into this situation.

A VERY IMPORTANT READ: October 1, 2021, Dr. Marsha Matson, Village Council, District 3, reveals how low Palmetto Bay Officials have sunk in denying transparency and access to government. All detailed in a shocking email of 9-30-2021 to the village manager.  

OTHER IMPORTANT READS - PRIOR PAST POSTS ON THIS ISSUE:

September 22, 2021, 87 Avenue Bridge Update. Here is the complete document - the proposed Interlocal Agreement between Palmetto Bay and Miami-Dade County. What does the agreement really provide?

September 20, 2021, Special council meeting set for Thursday, 9/23/2021 - relating to an agreement on the bridge. Does anyone have the specifics?



Monday, September 20, 2021

Special council meeting set for Thursday, 9/23/2021 - relating to an agreement on the bridge. Does anyone have the specifics?

There is a big meeting coming up this Thursday, September 23, 2021. And to mark the importance, the important document is not disclosed, more evidence that transparency is dead in Palmetto Bay. This behavior of non-disclosure has become the norm here in Palmetto Bay see prior posts of April 30, 2019 and April 24, 2019, Tactical Transparency in Palmetto Bay - who is managing information, the elected officials or campaign consultants? Either prior mayor would have posted this very important Interlocal Agreement no less than 7 days prior to this meeting.


This decision will profoundly impact the affected areas of Palmetto Bay. Some say for the better, so disagree and say it will be for the worse. And that is why details and public discussion are important. So what is the agreement? Who knows?

9/21/21 UPDATE. The actual document remains out of the public view. CLICK HERE to view the agenda (saved as 'final') as it was posted as of 9:20 AM just prior to the 9/23 meeting. The Resolution approving the agreement is prewritten and posted, but the very document that it references, the actual Interlocal Agreement, is NOT part of the package. Note that the actual Interlocal Agreement is the important document. Everything else is procedural fluff.

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS: What meetings were held with the stakeholders? I none, why? If meetings were held, then where was notice posted? Were minutes kept of any such meetings?

Here is all I have with only two business days remaining before the day this item is set to be decided. Is that fair to the affected residents (all sides of the issue).

This item was once set for a prior village council meeting, but deferred to allow time to review specifics. Now it is the close of day Monday, 9/20/2021 and the public (at least the general public) remains without access to the specifics pertaining to the 87th Avenue bridge.

I have written numerous articles relating to the lack of transparency of this current administration as well as the lack of prep and details of the so-called bridge fight.

Concerned residents appear not to be in the loop and are moving on beyond the current Palmetto Bay mayor and village council to contest the bridge.

But the fight appears lost. It really was never much of a fight at all. From the mayor engaging in a photo op at a park rather than appearing before a county board to contest the bridge (and claiming lack of notice besides having discussed the issue at a council meeting the night prior).

RECENT BACKGROUND: 

May 21, 2021, Canceled? Update on the "Hybrid Conflict Resolution Assessment Meeting with Miami-Dade County Transportation Planning Organization ("TPO") Regarding the SW 87th Avenue Bridge Project - CANCELED"

July 20, 2021, Palmetto Bay Bridge - the definitive statement from the Village Attorney - more post mortem - photos, video and links provided.

I have asked the question "What did they know and when did they know it?" (our current elected officials). February 2021 came and went without any elected officials keeping residents in the loop, updating them on preparations for combating the bridge. Why, obviously because there was no preparation, plan or vision. See another prior related post, this one posted February 2, 2021, Bridging Palmetto Bay - the plan is back and apparently this has been put together without any opposition or input from current Palmetto Bay officials. It is incredulous to think that our elected officials met with our County officials, with a new County Commissioner, without asking proper questions or being offered the updates on the plans for the bridge. 

Now we are left wondering what deal was cut and which (if any) residents were consulted or allowed input into this proposed deal set for a vote in the next few days. No wonder residents are reaching out directly to our County Mayor!

So why is money begin spent for the Social Media specialists as well as attorneys to attend these "mediations"? Where are the updates, the reports? What are the deliverables for the tax dollars being spent?
  • You want "no right turn signs"? The County has always been reasonable. What has been unreasonable has been the cost of enforcement. When does Palmetto Bay reach the number of 'no turn' signs where they lose their effectiveness?
  • You want "traffic tables"? We have secured these anytime we have asked (at least while I was in office). And I think we have reached the point of diminishing returns on them at this point.
  • Landscaped chicanes? We have been allowed to install those as well (I actually prefer them).  Approved for use and installed in 2008.
  • Roundabouts? They work. I even got the County to pay for them. Not everyone likes them, but traffic lights are so awkward. Holding drivers up when there is no traffic and tend to go out in bad weather. Current Palmetto Bay leaders have a lawsuit pending to avoid the County's offer to fund and build a roundabout at SW 87th and 174.
  • Traffic diversion, turning some streets one way? All could be done, at least at one time.
  • We did get the County to put in at least one traffic signal that I can recall - 87th avenue and Coral Reef Drive - through negotiation and in collaboration with our commissioner Katy Sorenson - once again, we thank you Katy! 
  • Also lighted crosswalks - Old Cutler Road/174, numerous spots on 82nd Avenue and on 168th street.


Tuesday, July 20, 2021

Palmetto Bay Bridge - the definitive statement from the Village Attorney - more post mortem - photos, video and links provided.

The bridge “fight” is over. The video clip embedded below speaks volumes and has led me to examine as to where we are as well as why we are in this situation. This fight ended quicker than a Mike Tyson fight. 

In review, my first thought is so much for the "fight" against the bridge.  Secondly, all we seem to have to show for this “fight” are two completing camps on this divisive issue. 

It is becoming obvious that there is no fight, or at least much of a fight. The honest voice from the council dais is saying that this is done; let's move on to other pressing business while the elected officials appear to want to pretend they are actually doing something. They aren’t other than to perpetuate a false drama.

This council knew it was going to be a major issue. It certainly was an issue during the campaigns. I guess too many officials never move out of campaign mode into getting it done mode. Palmetto Bay was run off the road on this issue. It wasn't pretty, regardless of which side you were on (I have always opposed bridging and lead the successful fight against in during much of my time in office). I warned the current mayor and the 2019 village council (pre-2020 elections) that this issue was coming. Yet it seems that 4 out of 5 of that group claimed surprise. See a prior post of December 15, 2020, 2021's first test - the bridge is back. Will it unite or divide Palmetto Bay? Will it happen without input from Palmetto Bay's so-called leaders? There was no preparation to meet this challenge. 

I asked the question "What did they know and when did they know it?" (our current elected officials). February 2021 came and went without any elected officials keeping residents in the loop, updating them on preparations for combating the bridge. Why, obviously because there was no preparation, plan or vision. See another prior related post, this one posted February 2, 2021, Bridging Palmetto Bay - the plan is back and apparently this has been put together without any opposition or input from current Palmetto Bay officials. It is incredulous to think that our elected officials met with our County officials, with a new County Commissioner, without asking proper questions or being offered the updates on the plans for the bridge. 

So why is money begin spent for the Social Media specialists as well as attorneys to attend these "mediations"? What are the deliverables for the tax dollars being spent?
  • You want "no right turn signs"? The County has always been reasonable. What has been unreasonable has been the cost of enforcement. When does Palmetto Bay reach the number of 'no turn' signs where they lose their effectiveness?
  • You want "traffic tables"? We have secured these anytime we have asked (at least while I was in office). And I think we have reached the point of diminishing returns on them at this point.
  • Landscaped chicanes? We have been allowed to install those as well (I actually prefer them).  Approved for use and installed in 2008.
  • Roundabouts? They work. I even got the County to pay for them. Not everyone likes them, but traffic lights are so awkward. Holding drivers up when there is no traffic and tend to go out in bad weather. Current Palmetto Bay leaders have a lawsuit pending to avoid the County's offer to fund and build a roundabout at SW 87th and 174.
  • Traffic diversion, turning some streets one way? All could be done, at least at one time.
  • We did get the County to put in at least one traffic signal that I can recall - 87th avenue and Coral Reef Drive - through negotiation and in collaboration with our commissioner Katy Sorenson - once again, we thank you Katy! 
  • Also lighted crosswalks - Old Cutler Road/174, numerous spots on 82nd Avenue and on 168th street.
More examples of concessions from Miami-Dade County waiting to be enacted? See July 21, 2017: Next Palmetto Bay debate: should we reduce speed limit on village managed roads to 25 MPH? Your voice matters - BREAKING NEWS- Friday, July 21,2017: Miami-Dade County has authorized the Village of Palmetto Bay to reduce the village speed limit  (on Village jurisdiction Roads) to 25 mph. Again, what are your thoughts? I started the discussion back in 2017. This is a debate that needs to occur within Palmetto Bay, amongst our residents. The County is good to go (or at least was good at one time).

But all this was through a well-developed quality working relationship built while I was in office between Palmetto Bay and the County.
  • In fact, the County has even looked away when Palmetto Bay has conveniently failed to comply with the requirements that the 'temporary traffic tables' (informally identified as the black rubber mats) be removed after 90 days.
The current Palmetto Bay Mayor and some council members appear to want to fight rather than work with Miami-Dade County. Contrast pre-2019 when the County would assist in design and payment for traffic roundabouts while I was mayor with the actual lawsuits filed and maintained to fight the traffic circle proposed for 87th and 174. This is after some (I wont name her here) took credit for obtaining the traffic circle, yet flip flopped and fought it when some residents objected at a meeting. Facts are facts and here is another good background post of February 11, 2020, Lawsuit? What lawsuit? Palmetto Bay is now a bit player in future decisions to be made regarding traffic solutions along SW 87th Avenue and surrounding areas.

The video embedded below is an excerpt from the Palmetto Bay Regular Council Meeting, July, 2021: Village attorney response to query from Council Member Marsha Matson. It is fact based and appears to me to be a professional and proper way of setting expectations.

His statement: "The County is going to build that bridge and they've made that very clear; that nothing is going to stop that construction."


NOTE: This video was taken from another site. I did not prepare or had any input on the preparation or posting of the video from this YouTube site, but it does present important information. Anyone interested should watch the full video of the entire meeting - don't wait for the minutes to be posted as this current mayor has seen fit to post a very limited number of meeting minutes - I believe only 4 meetings held since January 2019 have minutes posted out of approximately 132 meetings held to date.

CLICK HERE to view some prior related posts relating to the 87th avenue bridge.

What do I think went wrong? Agreements have not been kept by Palmetto Bay - causing a crisis of credibility and leading Miami-Dade County to move on without Palmetto Bay's input.

Included, but important to set out here is a prior related post of January 8, 2018, entitled: "Commissioner Cava issues her decision. She is NOT supportive of the 87th Avenue bridge. She will continue to work to find solutions for all." These were the days of collaboration and inter-governmental inclusion / partnership. Look at the list of past projects that were worked out through collaboration with the prior administration of Palmetto Bay. 


Ask yourself what happened to the partnership once the new (current) administration took over on December 5, 2018. Projects have been pushed back, cancelled, modified, basically, it is my observation that the commitments were not kept by Palmetto Bay, thereby forcing the County's hand to move forward on the 87th avenue bridge. Ask yourself, can the bridges for 77th Avenue be too far in our future?

You want more examples? There are many that can be listed and I want to keep this post relatively short, but here is just one:


This council needs to spend more time on the issues and less time on distractions, spin and photo ops. 

Friday, May 21, 2021

Weekender. Canceled? Update on the "Hybrid Conflict Resolution Assessment Meeting with Miami-Dade County Transportation Planning Organization ("TPO") Regarding the SW 87th Avenue Bridge Project - CANCELED"

One word: “CANCELED” – let that sink in. WTH? We, the people of Palmetto Bay, appear to be on a "need to know basis" and apparently, those in the know deem us unworthy of a substantive update.  Who here is actually being kept in the loop? Take note - the official notice is marked "CANCELED" in big bold read letters - it does not state "RESCHEDULED TO XXXX XX, 2021"

FAIR QUESTIONS:

  • Has this very important public meeting been rescheduled, if so, then for what date?
  • Was it canned because someone wasn’t ready? 
  • Is this it? Has the towel been thrown in?
  • Are any meetings scheduled to review and prepare for the rescheduled meeting?

What is the next step? My sources tell me that the 87th Avenue bridge is currently scheduled for groundbreaking this coming January, 2022. This is a mere seven (7) months away.  That is a blink of an eye in terms of government timeline. That is a mere 7 regular village council meetings from now.

Remember that I announced this issue was revived in my prior related post of December 15, 2020, 2021's first test - the bridge is back. Will it unite or divide Palmetto Bay? Will it happen without input from Palmetto Bay's so-called leaders? - and quite frankly the report card demonstrates that this bridge is happening without input from Palmetto Bay's so-called leaders. Can anyone demonstrate any real effort from this current mayor and council from December 2020 to this date? Most likely none, or this meeting may not have been canceled.

As I have stated before, it is universally recognized that the 87th Avenue Bridge is one of the most important issues of concern above affected Palmetto Bay residents. This post is in follow up to a PRIOR RELATED POST of  May 18, 2021, Any updates on the 87th Avenue Bridge "fight"? Why are village officials not holding any public stakeholder town halls? The issues relating to the 87th Avenue bridge are complex. Palmetto Bay officials need a solid plan – worked out with public and expert involvement. 

Also see another RELATED POST of May 20, 2021, Preparing for the dispute resolution. Is there a plan. Let's look to the status of the Town of Miami Lake and that bridge litigation (SPOILER ALERT - dismissed with prejudice - on appeal).

There is not much time. It is one thing for a public official to allege that they will ‘fight’ for or against a position, but it is quite another the properly prepare in order to be successful in that fight.

It is almost as if the talk of Palmetto Bay's current electeds fails to meet their (in)action; as if the current electeds say one thing while actually allowing the issue to be resolved by the County outside of their influence. 

I am waiting for an update - and hopefully some positive news.

Editor's Note: The term "need to know", when used by government and other organizations, describes the restriction of data which is considered very sensitive. Wikipedia