Letting the facts speak for themselves - documenting who voted for the creation of the VMU in 2008 (This may surprise you, but it shouldn't)

Facts are facts. Just to be clear, former Mayor Shelley Stanczyk was one of the 5 members of the village council who worked together to enact the VMU. Then Council Member Shelley Stanczyk represented district 3; the district where the Palmetto Bay Village Center is located.  She had every opportunity to influence the pending legislation that involved over 42 meetings, including a charrette led by village residents. 

Shelly Stanczyk's actions: Did she object? No. She voted for the VMU! Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.  CLICK HERE to view the VMU ordinance as approved in 2008.  

Facts are facts.  What that saying about people who live in glass houses?

PS – Stanczyk had 4 years as mayor to rescind the VMU, but she never seemed to be interested.

Final vote on VMU - Ordinance No. 08-09

\

Page 9 of 9, line 44 - recorded vote of Council Member (at time of vote) Stanczyk

Follow up on the the facts relating to the purchase of the Shore property (partial). Facts are facts. Documents cited.

How sad for Palmetto Bay. The present members of the Village Council who are running for re-election just appear to make things up - bogyman politics at play.

FACT - a resident obtained his own appraisal for the Shores property. Guess what. It confirms the value of the land.  This was originally reported in a PRIOR RELATED POST of April 16, 2021, Wow. Facts are facts. I believe that the current mayor, vice mayor and other members of the Village Council owe a retraction and an apology to former Manager Silva.

I am reposting the factual response by former manager (and long time Village resident) Ed Silva:

This Council continues to refer to the appraisal done by a private resident to claim that we didn't get the correct amount of land in the downtown area. I'm providing a copy of an appraisal with the letter of authorization in which the appraisal company has been directed to only appraise the .98 acres of land. Look closely at the document and you shall see that the appraisal authorization letter clearly states that this subject property is a part of a larger 2.27 acre site. Ironically the appraised value for just the .98 acres was $2,050,000. There was no instructions to provide a value for the bigger right of way parcel. Now again ask yourself why having these documents the Council has elected to question the integrity of the Village Attorney and Village Manager who both are no longer associated with the Village? Seems a bit vindictive doesn't it?

Here is a copy of part of that appraisal:

Please watch the Video posted below where the Hon. Dexter Lehtinen explains the facts relating to this purchase. Please take note that this village council knows better than to attack Mr. Lehtinen in regards to the purchase.

This is in follow up to another PRIOR RELATED POST of October 10, 2024, Campaign lies exposed. Get the facts and avoid campaign lies. A great purchase for the village.

Not only did the Village obtain valuable land (that the village still owns - which is probably worth even more than what was paid for it), but we stopped the 1,400 student charter school that then Mayor Stanczyk enthusiastically approved (see the post for the resolution). 

Sad that this is yet another example of their spin and deflection - and misrepresentation of the fact.  Only the substances of the controversy changes. But then again, “a leopard never changes its spots”. It continues to be apparent to me that drama, chaos and lack of civility from members of this current village council remain the preferred method of official business in Palmetto Bay.

Campaign lies exposed. Get the facts and avoid campaign lies. A great purchase for the village.

Campaign lies exposed.  Here are the facts about the purchase of the eastern portion of the Shores property. Look for the second part to be released soon as to why did the council refuse to sell the property back to the seller if it was such a bad deal.

Three members of the 2017 village council voted to purchase 2.0 (+) acres of the eastern end of the Shores property that was specifically described as “… essentially the school site and OTHER ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAYS ….” (emphasis added). It is very clear. Only the spin and lack of research (or honesty) is being put out there.  As the Hon. Dexter Lehtinen, the village attorney who negotiated and approved the transaction, would say: read the property deed if you want to know what was purchased.

Please review the entire resolution. CLICK HERE to view village resolution 2017-142.  Facts are facts. Get the facts.

This is not the first time .  Read my prior post of October 28, 2019, Village Council Chaos - Interaction with Village Attorney at a council meeting - Village Mayor & Council: You have been told repeatedly. You are the voting body. You have responsibilities of reading and knowing what you are voting on. It appears that lightning does strike twice in regards to this mayor and council, as once again, I find myself reminding this current mayor and council:

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

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

Only the substances of the controversy changes. But then again, “a leopard never changes its spots”. It continues to be apparent to me that drama, chaos and lack of civility from members of this current village council remain the preferred method of official business in Palmetto Bay.

Oh, and a very, very interesting aside – please CLICK HERE to view Palmetto Bay Development Order from a 2014 zoning hearing where then Mayor Stanczyk and the 2014 council APPROVED a 1,400 seat charter school on part of the site later purchased by Palmetto Bay in 2018. (Note that this charter school could not be eliminated once approved, but it was later reduced by 400 student stations under me in 2015.) The Stanczyk council determined in this order that "... based on substantial competent evidence in the record, that the application for the charter school is consistent with the Village of Palmetto Bay's Comprehensive Plan and the applicable Land Development Regulations." 

The facts are facts that the purchase of these 2.0 acres of school site and right of way saved Palmetto Bay from the Stanczyk approved charter school as I placed a covenant in the land that remained under the Shores ownership that prohibits a charter school. The current mayor, village council member and village staff appear to be silent on that important fact, but then again, they retain credit regardless of where that lies and cast blame upon anyone but themselves. Shame on them and shame on candidate who lie.

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.

Miami’s Cafecito Culture Life and what makes us unique in the world - too bad it is Cafecito Cancelled Culture here in Palmetto Bay.

Artists can make their point through art, but it has to reach an audience that appreciates and understands.

Does anyone else see the irony here?

Let me highlight it for those that have missed recent controversies:

Local officials will allow it to be displayed on the wall as an art exhibit, but they don’t want you to enjoy it live here in Palmetto Bay. El Cafecito Culture – cancelled in Palmetto Bay.

“Village of Palmetto Bay
Don't Miss "El Cafecito Culture" By Joe Rodriguez, Saturday, March 19th at 6:30 pm at the Perrine Community House.”

Let’s hope that this artist brought some culture to Palmetto Bay officials and convinced them to embrace, rather than reject, the unique Miami Culture.

“I invite you to step into the passion I have for my culture, and through my art, take with you slices of Miami’s Cafecito Culture Life and what makes us unique in the world!

I’m Joe Rodriquez, I’m part of el Cafecito Culture. Sabor mi gente!”

I wonder if any of the Palmetto Bay officials took the time to appreciate and, if so, I hope there was an awakening. See post of November 4, 2021, We should embrace Ventanitas here in Palmetto Bay. It's a Miami thing, another way for the community to gather, asking Why can't we embrace La "Ventanitas" here in Palmetto Bay? 

But let's fact it, this art exhibit proved a point (as Art often does), when it comes to recognizing the meaning of art, well, our current mayor and council are clearly philistines. This significance of this exhibit clearly went over their heads as while they think it was a distraction from their building code banishment of Miami’s Cafecito Culture Life, so many of us see this exhibit for what it is. 

What compounds this is the fact that is is at least the second example in the last year – see a prior post of 9/30/2021: "Missed message": Ignoring Cortada’s message as the current mayor once again misses the importance of going native – a Wildflower Meadow could have been planted, but we get – instead - another wasteful grass lawn.

Art - can be a strong communication medium for those who care to listen. And while the current mayor and council can keep deflecting and denying, but facts are facts. See: October 26, 2021, Facts are important. Claims from Palmetto Bay elected officials and staff, stating that Ventanitas are not “banned”, do not appear to line up with the experience of Vicky’s Bakery, the updated ordinance or staff presentation at the hearing. Read/see for yourself.

Enough said, however, nice exhibit "El Cafecito Culture" by Joe Rodriguez, it spoke loudly.  Well played.

Marlin Engineering provides guidance on a proper shared path. This is important for Coral Reef Drive & 184 – and the specifications demonstrate that the 136th Shared Path is more a mess than a safe path – important details.

Do it right, or don't do it at all. The current mayor and this council should not repeat the mistakes made in redesigning the SW 136th Street project. The photos at the bottom serve to shine light on poor planning and defines the term forcing a square peg in a round hole - who is really happy with SW 136th Street? The results really do not fit in this particular place or situation. 

Important point: There is no legal requirement to make profound changes to either SW 184 or Coral Reef Drive - so the Palmetto Bay mayor and council should resist temptation to spend the tax dollars, unless the project brings quality improvements to those streets. Don't sacrifice historic coral rock walls and magnificent shade and clean air producing canopy trees to a vanity project.

The first question is whether a shared path properly fit in the existing street right of way.  This Coral Reef / 184 project is not one of a pre-planned area. These areas will require significant work arounds due to many existing obstacles such as power poles, coral rock walls and many, many historic trees. Marlin Engineering* has provided recommended specifications regarding a proper shared path (see figure and description posted below). This is important for Coral Reef Drive & 184 – and the specifications demonstrate that the 136th Shared Path is more a mess than a safe path – important details.

The following is the Marlin Engineering planner's specifications contained in slide 16.

• The standard width is 10 to 12-Feet, may be 8-Feet in areas where space is restricted or if it is not heavily used.
• The path must be at least 6-Feet from roadway and have a 2-Foot clearance on each side.

See Page/slide 16 of the Multi-Use Trail & SMART Plan Connectivity Study, Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee Meeting, November 16, 2021

Why is the above important?

Because here are some photos taken of the SW 136th Street path where you can clearly see significant portions of the path where these important guidelines are not met:

Observable issues (above). The path at these points are neither 6 feet from the roadway nor is there the stated recommended two feet clearance on the other side (backs up to a thick hedge - you can see why that would be a problem when dealing with handlebars, etc.)

Immediately above and below - there is no explaining splitting the path into two separate 4 foot sections. Does it really equal a useable 8 feet? Is the sidewalk traffic really that bad that Palmetto Bay officials feel the need to created a divided pathway to separate oncoming users? There is no 2 foot buffer to the inside portion as well as a lack of 6 feet buffer from the street. The only way to describe this is the useable swale area (water runoff) and resident/guest parking is gone, essentially the entire right of way has been paved over.

Above - twisting and turning with an abrupt reduction from 6-8 feet to a standard 5 foot sidewalk, clearly not within the Marlin Engineering guideline.

Below - where is the safety buffer from traffic? Cars can and will easily pull off the road and onto the pathway, placing users at risk.

CLICK HERE to view prior related posts on shared paths including 136th Street, Red Road and Old Cutler Road, both in Palmetto Bay as well as in Cutler Bay.

*Marlin Engineering is facilitating Palmetto Bay's Multi-Use Trail & SMART Plan Connectivity Study

True bike mobility - examples of bike mobility options - see for yourself. What is your vision?

The video documents conventional bike lanes, pained bike lanes v protected bike lanes, as well as a shared path (where the roadway remains marked for shared use by bicyclists - identical to the Old Cutler Path).  This information is important as current Palmetto Bay officials are not satisfied with the SW 136th Street project - next up are other streets, including SW 184 as well as Coral Reef Drive - January 28, 2022, Next issue - do we turn Coral Reef Drive into the next SW 136th Street? Time to get involved.

 

Examples of different bike lanes - traditional (conventional) - along SW 62nd Avenue (in front of Miami's Community Newspapers) 0:01:42 Painted, traditional non-separated bike lane. 0:02:17 Sharrow and wide sidewalk 0:02:43 example of a curbed protected bike lane 0:03:38 another example of a curbed protected bike lane 

More to follow on bike lanes.

When you look, please consider what you prefer as a motorist as bike lanes are for drivers as well. How? Because a bike lane places the cyclists in their own lane, rather than taking the lane in front of the motorist. Remember, a shared path is not a dedicated bike lane. See December 17, 2018, Taking a close look - Old Cutler Bike Trail - designed use, rules of the road - Types of bikeways - 2 discussed here: paved path & sharrows. Cyclists may choose to use it, but is not required to do so - and there are many examples I can give as to why 'taking the lane' is preferable, and safer, for a cyclist than riding a shared path.

Also think about what you would prefer as a homeowner living on that street. Look to SW 136th Street to see the loss of swale (drainage, landscaping - green space) and parking. Does the SW 136th Street project get bicyclists off the roadway. In then end, the SW 136th Street is just a disjointed collection off standard size sidewalks in part with wider sidewalk  sections in other sections. Barriers remain in many areas including signage, abrupt curves as well as utility boxes and poles. It is neither well thought out or well designed.  See: October 2, 2021, Special post - Photo(s) of the day. Reader submitted photos of the Palmetto Bay designed shared path. Or is it a car park?

Another issue with projected bike lanes - what happens at time of deliveries - or garbage / recycling pick up? How are vehicles going to move down streets during these events? Delivery vehicles will remain in the street as they cannot pull off the road due to the barriers created for the protected bike lanes.  But at least no one will be parking on in the protected bike lanes (as they do on the shared paths) - the curbing or barriers prevent any such intrusion. 

We are seeing the impact of share paths in Palmetto Bay - far too many examples of vehicles parking on them as the right of way (swales) have been lost, so now where do guests or large families park? I have documented many such violations throughout this blog. So we need more?

This post is another in my series of relating to local issues, local places. This is part of a developing "taking a close look at" or "Fact Checking" series on issues and places in and around Palmetto Bay and our south Miami-Dade Communities.

Update – why the Ventanitas are important. This issue is becoming more about truth in government than what kind of coffee you drink and where you get it.

Credibility is important. Facts are facts. Palmetto Bay would rather engage the social media crisis managers rather than taking the issue on responsibly.  I was shopping for my mother earlier this week at the Publix located at 7805 SW 40th St (some may remember this location as where the Tropicare Drive In Theatre and weekend swap meet were once located). The photos of the walk up windows at Publix is what is being debated in Palmetto Bay:

How are the walk up windows so offensive to some that they want to ban them in Palmetto Bay?
FAIR QUESTION: Who sees a threat in a ventanita? What problem was being solved in enacting the ban on walk up window sales?

After looking at the pictures and after assessing the controversy created, what Palmetto Bay officials may want to now say is: Oh, you wanted a ventanita, we thought you wanted a walk up sales window! Why didn’t you say so in the first place?

But seriously, a ventanita is simply a walk up window. Vicky’s Bakery asked for one and was denied - that is an undeniable fact. Vicky’s Bakery is an established local business with several locations in Miami-Dade County, one with a successful track record that is willing to invest by opening at what has recently become a revolving door location. 

It's not easy to bring in a local business with a solid tract record. It is much easier to drive them off. Long time locals will remember that Vicky’s Bakery is now located where Ranch House, Flamingo’s, Coopers and others once tried to make a go of it. Why can’t this current mayor and her administration try to encourage the success of a new business? Why do they have to make it hard to both open as well as operate a business here? Are they that excited about new businesses that they want to see more revolving doors?

HINT: There is a problem if you are cutting a grand opening ribbon every few years at the same location.

Let’s look at the fiction being spun in order to deflect from the issue; the claim that  --- one can get Cuban coffee in Palmetto Bay – so what? Who said you can’t buy or drink Cuban coffee in Palmetto Bay? I can and do get it, both at home and out. That has never been an issue. However:

The truth and the issue: You can’t get your coffee (of any variety) or any other item when purchased through a walk up window. A ventanita is a walk up window.

The spin put out by the village officials as well as their social media allies is both ridiculous and disingenuous

Again, take the time to view as this just a 21 second video clip – watch it for yourself.

Can we just see this current mayor and council own up to the issue and make it right?

Are the mayor and the council unaware as to what they voted on or are they desperately dog paddling for air to deflect, deny and escape what they have done?

More people are now watching this current mayor and council and that is good. We will continue to separate fact from fictional spin. This is government and it must be held to the standard required in the Village Charter. See September 23, 2020, Palmetto Bay Charter - Citizens' Bill of Rights - requires Truth in Government by our elected officials and employees.

Stay tuned. Demand truth in government.

For more background and additional details, see the prior related post of October 26, 2021, Facts are important. Claims from Palmetto Bay elected officials and staff, stating that Ventanitas are not “banned”, do not appear to line up with the experience of Vicky’s Bakery, the updated ordinance or staff presentation at the hearing. Read/see for yourself.

Facts are important. Claims from Palmetto Bay elected officials and staff, stating that Ventanitas are not “banned”, do not appear to line up with the experience of Vicky’s Bakery, the updated ordinance or staff presentation at the hearing. Read/see for yourself.

Credibility is important. Facts are facts. Are the mayor and the council unaware as to what they voted on or are they desperately dog paddling for air to escape what they have done?

What am I talking about? Well, it has been the talk of Miami, starting with the article in the Miami Herald - ‘Either stupidity or racism’: Is Palmetto Bay really trying to ban Cuban ventanitas? By Samantha J. Gross and Carlos Frias, 10/22/2021: Miami Herald subscribers can read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/miami-com/restaurants/article255188817.html#storylink=cpy

The facts are telling.  The herald quotes a staffer who denies that Ventanitas are banned alleging that:

“They have never been prohibited, and they are not prohibited now,” Community and Economic Development Director Maria Pineda told the Miami Herald. “We just have to take a look at parameters, just like we look at parameters for outdoor seating.” Ventanitas can be pivotal to Latin bakeries’ success.

Hold on there – is this true? So then does Vicky’s Bakery have a Ventanita? The Herald reporters checked in with Vicky Bakery CEO Pedro Cao who stated that:

Vicky Bakery had to work around a Palmetto Bay rule that didn’t allow for a walk-up window when it opened its village store two years ago. The owners had to build a window 2 feet inside the building, behind double doors, hurting visibility from the street, Cao said. (bold emphasis added)

There are many who would argue that a window placed 2 feet inside the building is NOT a Ventanita.

Is a Ventanita important?

“About 25-30% of a bakery’s business comes from the walk-up window, said Vicky Bakery CEO Pedro Cao, who has a franchise in Palmetto Bay. Often the window is a major draw for people driving by who see it and decide to pop in for a quick coffee or pastry. “

So who is reporting or telling the truth? What was said at the meeting? What was presented in writing?

It appears that their purpose was very specific. It says that all sales shall be inside the establishment and walk up sales windows shall not be permitted. It is the use or consumption of merchandise that shall not be permitted except by conditional use approval. So this looks to be very clear that in the B 1 limited business district, the walk up windows are specifically banned.

A conditional use application would not apply as “…walk up sales windows shall not be permitted.” It does NOT say that walk up windows require conditional use approval. Nope  - “not permitted.”

Page 35 from the agenda is pictured at the bottom wiht an excerpt posted to the right. A 21 second video clip of the staff report is embedded below. Please watch the excerpt. The 21 seconds are VERY important. What I hear is that staff is clearly stating that walk up windows are banned consistent with council request. Again, walk up window, as opposed to drive through windows. Please listen for yourself.

 

If not the B-1 zoning district, then how about the B-2 zoning District? B2 also includes a ban as walk up windows are not listed uses (items 1-14 additional to those uses permitted in the B1 district). Walk up windows are not listed under accessory uses or conditional uses (limited to items 1-4). "Prohibited uses include all uses that are not specifically listed in the section." I don’t see how or where Ventanitas are permitted in either of these zoning districts.

Facts are facts. What did the ordinance say? Here is the applicable page from the zoning hearing where this ordinance was approved on second (and final) reading. It was approved 5 – 0. It will be important to review the final ordinance, signed into law by the mayor and clerk as well as the meeting minutes. You can be sure that all these documents will be reviewed by the public with a very detailed fine tooth comb.

For now, I see a ban, no chance for a conditional use, and a need to totally revise this inartfully prepared ordinance. I see that Vicky’s Bakery in fact does NOT have a Ventanita in direct contradiction of the statements made to the Miami Herald Reporters.

Everyone is watching this current mayor and council. We will separate fact from fictional spin. This is government and must be held to the standard required in the Village Charter. See September 23, 2020, Palmetto Bay Charter - Citizens' Bill of Rights - requires Truth in Government by our elected officials and employees.

Stay tuned.

I bettcha our Palmetto Pay officials were unaware; who here knew that Miami-Dade County has a FIXED-GUIDEWAY RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM—DEVELOPMENT ZONE code already in place? It’s there on Municode (this is part one of a series). Links provided.

Does any remember Ronald Reagan? For those that do, I must employ his words, “there you go again…” to our current elected officials who (once again) are not properly focusing on the issues at hand and instead, are relying upon catchphrases, hyperbole, or even hysterical comments in regard to the latest issue to hit Palmetto Pay: the Rapid Transit Zone (RTZ). Could the RTZ be the next 87 Avenue bridge fiasco for Palmetto Bay*? I am hopeful it won’t be and I raise that hope as we should have multiple communities pushing in the same direction. That is, until such time as those other communities cut their own deals and pull out, leaving others to suffer from this high density overlay known as the Rapid Transit Zone (RTZ).

But yet again, like the 87th Avenue bridge, it is clear that the current Palmetto Bay officials (once again) have a late start and are moving forward completely oblivious to the fact that precedent was laid in the 1970s for this current effort. This blog post is intended to educate them to the extent that I am able.

It is also important to note that the current mayor and council are neither fast studies nor will the react fast as it is documented that the current mayor knew of the bridge issue in the discussions held with County Commissioner Cohen Higgins in December 2020. It is also unfortunately that not a single member of the Village Council or Charter Officers could (or would) attend a very important County meeting on the bridge, this despite the fact that the  next day County meeting was discussed at a Village Council meeting. That's right, no one attended from Palmetto Bay. Facts are facts. The mayor felt her time was better spent the morning of the TPO meeting at a photo op at Coral Reef Park. Fine, photo ops trump the people's business in the mayor's mind, but why did she fail to at least  designate any other member of the village council or staff to attend and object on behalf of Palmetto Bay.  I mean really? Not a single member of the 5 member village council nor any of the 3 charter officers could attend in order to place an objection on the record? They must really have some very demanding, inflexible, schedules. 

The acts (inaction) revealed above is how the people of Palmetto Bay end up under represented and lose before the County. 

RTZ BACKGROUND: Miami-Dade County, Florida, implemented the beginnings of Rapid Transit Zone (RTZ) in the late 1970s concurrent with the approval of its heavy rail system. It makes sense. The heavy rail has but one owner,  Miami-Dade County, which is also the regional government responsible for the delivery of mass transit through a divided metropolitan area that presently includes 34 individual municipalities, each with its own zoning regulations and processes. It was back in the 1970s that the County first set the ground work for a RTZ code that preempts zoning and permitting jurisdiction to the County for all property under and around the heavy-rail system.

LEADERSHIP LESSON ONE – you must research and understand an issue before you can begin to mount a quality defense.

THE RTZ CODE, AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS: Here is the applicable county codes, that, by the way, have long been posted on Municode. See Chapter 33C

Chapter 33C - FIXED-GUIDEWAY RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM—DEVELOPMENT ZONE 

Sec. 33C-1. - Legislative intent, findings and purposes.

            The Board of County Commissioners for Miami-Dade County, Florida, hereby declares and finds that the uncoordinated use of lands within the County threatens the orderly development and the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity and welfare of the present and future citizens of this County. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 75-22, the Board adopted and accepted the Comprehensive Development Master Plan for Miami-Dade County whereby it specifically declared that it was the continuing policy of Miami-Dade County, in cooperation with federal, State, regional and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all reasonable means and measures to:

                        (a) Foster and promote the general welfare;
                        (b) To create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony; and
                        (c) To fill the social, economic and other requirements of the present and future generations of citizens of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Footnote*: The lack of proper legislation management is why I term the 87 Avenue bridge process a fiasco. Those in favor of the bridge may disagree, stating that it was time, but all much acknowledge that current Palmetto Pay officials failed to put up an real roadblocks to the most recent bridge effort looking unprepared and out maneuvered, regardless of whether you are pro or anti- bridge. The officials made some noise to appear as if they were anti-bridge (usually limited to caustic emails or constrained one minute statements before the various County hearings) but the County paid little if any attention to the noise created by current Palmetto Bay officials. CLICK HERE to view prior posts relating to the ineffective bridge defense.

THE GOAL: Let’s hope the neighboring communities can prepare and organized effort that our Palmetto Pay officials bay hitch our hopes to and ride their coattails to success.

STAY TUNED FOR FURTHER UPDATES AND BACKGROUND!

Update on Multi-Paths for Palmetto Bay - the request was for $1 Million for a project with a projected total cost of $6,195,345. The Palmetto Bay taxpayers would put up the $5,195,345 match.

When we will be put in the loop? Only careful readers of Village Council business would have a hint that the current Mayor and Village Council are hell-bent on wrapping Palmetto Bay in 10 feet of sidewalk. Where are the meaningful public hearings, updates, or town hall meetings? Whose voice(es) matter?

What is mindboggling is how the current mayor and some members of the village council are deflecting responsibility through alleging that the shared path now under construction on SW 136th Street is a County Project (it is not, it was started under Palmetto Bay as a bike lanes project and morphed under a JPA CLICK HERE for background). 

Watch out! The shared path lightning bolt may strike twice in Palmetto Bay! Keep an eye out. I am the one who is actually keeping you in the loop. That a look at a SW 184th Street project that the current mayor and 2019 Village Council pitched to the TPO under the name "SW 184 St Intermodal/Intercity Connectivity Pathway".

The TAP request was for funding in the amount of $1 Million for a project with a projected total cost of $6,195,345. The Palmetto Bay taxpayers would put up the $5,195,345 match. And best of all, this $6,195,345 is the Village spending municipal (and grant money) for a COUNTY road.  Yes, that's right, there is no County partnership, this is not Palmetto Bay sweetening the pot to obtain some control or enhancements; this is 100% Palmetto Bay taxpayer dollars ($$$) mitigated by a mere 20% contribution by a TPO Grant.

But, but but: I know what you are thinking, but our current elects keep referencing 136th Street shared path as a COUNTY PROJECT - surely they would have no more influence over 184 than they had over 136th.

The reality: Apparently they have less influence over 184 than 136. Palmetto Bay did submit an application for a TPO grant for the Multi-Path along 184th Street from US1 to Old Cutler Road. (CLICK HERE) to view this detailed application (21 pages). This item was placed on the February 4, 2019, Regular Village Council Meeting agenda as item 10N (CLICK HERE) to view this item that I obtained and saved to my Google Drive. You can also view the approved resolution, Resolution 2019-32, where the current mayor and 2019 village council approved moving forward on seeking this grant by a 4-0 vote (CLICK HERE).

The application was not funded by the Miami-Dade TPO. The TPO received 21 applications for TAP funding in the 2019 cycle. 

The list of the 21 applications for TAP funding in the 2019 cycle

MEASURING SUCCESS: The 2019 Palmetto Bay mayor and council were limited in their "success" on 136th Street, merely redesigning a bike lane project worked out by a prior Palmetto Bay administration to a shared path (placed solely onto the Palmetto Bay side), but this mayor and council have been unable to date to get a 184th Street shared path moving forward.

SW 136th Street Project update. Time for an honest discussion – the project designed by Palmetto Bay officials is hardly a bikeability project. It is comparable to the shared path along Old Cutler Road (OCR). I have several points to make here in this post.

The shared path designed for SW 136 Street by the present Palmetto Bay mayor and council is not a protected bike lane; it will function to the same extent that the Old Cutler Trail (OCR) is not a protected bike lane (OCR is a "Sharrow"). The 136 Street path will not be safe for cyclists who travel at fast speeds. Many of the cyclists who ride the road (as opposed to the share path) are travelling at speeds averaging 17 to greater than 25 MPH. Those speeds to not mix well with joggers, pedestrians, children, dogs or golf carts that will also be using a shared path (hence the name - "shared path")

Too few are willing to acknowledge that the bicycle is legally defined as a vehicle and the bicyclist is a driver under the Laws of the State of Florida (see Florida Statutes, Chapter 316.2065 Bicycle regulations.—). Bicyclists have the same rights to the roadways, and must obey the same traffic laws as the drivers of other vehicles. These laws include stopping for stop signs and red lights, riding with the flow of traffic, using lights at night, yielding the right-of-way when entering a roadway and yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks. 

Please note that this post is a bit technical, but it needs discussion as there are big issues that I see when looking at the current rendering for the SW 136th Street project is where does Palmetto Bay account for the cyclist on the roadway? The cyclists are missing. Why? Are Palmetto Bay officials wishing them away? These needs to be room for the cyclists and, more important, proper room for allowing safe passage around cyclists as the law is clear, 3 foot buffer required when passing:

The driver of a vehicle overtaking a bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle, or an electric bicycle, must pass the bicycle, other nonmotorized vehicle, or electric bicycle at a safe distance of not less than 3 feet between the vehicle and the bicycle, other nonmotorized vehicle, or electric bicycle.
See: Florida Statutes 316.083 (1) (Bold emphasis added)

Issues that I have found with shared paths: Predictability is a huge factor in preventing accidents. Drivers look for the oncoming motor vehicles before they make turns. Cyclists on a multi-path are often far from the focused field of vision for motor vehicle drivers, especially if the cyclist is riding on a multi-path in a direction that is counter to the direction of the lane it is adjacent to (e.g. riding southbound on the Old Cutler Path, which is adjacent to the north bound lane of traffic on Old Cutler Road). Cyclists are often obscured by these vehicles and have moved into the path of the vehicle by the time the oncoming traffic has cleared.

The bottom line is that a multi-path is not a protected bike lane and anyone who thinks these paths are “safer” than bike lanes are fooling themselves (and putting people at risk). 

The sad part is that I can already hear the angst by motorists, yelling in frustration at these cyclists to ‘get onto the sidewalk that taxpayers paid $$$ millions for, but that cyclists refuse to use.” Facts are facts. Cyclists are legally allowed to use the road (Florida Statutes, Chapter 316.2065) and motorists are legally required to pass cyclists allowing for a 3 foot buffer.

It is too bad that current Palmetto Bay officials have failed to hold a public, open and frank discussion of these issues. Unrealistic expectations may have been set. 

SPECIAL NOTE: Look to the 3 areas I have circled in red (photo above). Moving from left to right, the first two circled areas are missing the anticipated cyclists. Will there be room for vehicles to pass safely, providing for the legally required 3 foot buffer? The 3rd area circled is equally concerning. 8-10 feet of shared path is alleged, but there does not appear to be sufficient room for cyclists and pedestrians to co-exist. Is this official rendering not to scale?

SW 136th Street update. There is no mistaking who owns responsibility for this SW 136th project design: Palmetto Bay officials (2019 to date) who redesigned it from bike lanes to a MEGA shared path.

Let's be clear. Palmetto Bay was at all time responsible for the design on the SW 136th Street Project. Palmetto Bay also had the right of first refusal to the Project.  The County is responsible for the construction of the Palmetto Bay designed project. So here we go, the project is finally moving to actual construction. This past Monday, County crews identified the trees that will be removed and replaced for the SW 136 Street MEGA sidewalk project. I have been contacted my many people concerned about the numbers of trees marked for death (removal) and relocation. Remember, this project was once a bike lane project that would have extended the road surface a total of 8 feet; 4 feet on the Palmetto Bay side (east bound lanes) and the other 4 feet on the Pinecrest side (the west bound lanes).

The “Finger Pointing Tour” has begun. Palmetto Bay deflection of responsibility is ramping up as they keep referring to "the County" as responsible for this project. This is a project where Palmetto Bay officials now reference everything as “the County”. Now it is true that "the county" is readying to break ground sometime on or about July 12. It is also true that "the County" marked the trees for removal or 'relocation'.  But please, do not scapegoat Miami-Dade County. The ‘shared path’ slated for SW 136 Street is far from an exclusive project of Miami-Dade County. It is a Joint Participation Project,  done under a contract known as a Joint Participation Agreement (JPA). This means Palmetto Bay officials can't blame Miami-Dade County for the change from a bike lane to the MEGA (8-10 foot) shared path. The current Mayor and Village Council of Palmetto Bay had control over the project design. 

The original plan: (Prior administration) The Palmetto Bay Village Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-47 approving the Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) with Miami-Dade County to construct a bicycle lane along SW 136 Street from US1 to Old Cutler Road.

The information is contained in Resolution, (2017-47) which allocated a total of $500,000 in Village funds toward the project.

Comprehensive information is available in a PRIOR RELATED POST of September 23, 2020, Facts are facts. Here are the facts concerning the SW 136 Street Bike Lanes project: It is a Joint Project (JPA) between Miami-Dade County and Palmetto Bay.

Please also take the time to review another detailed article (posted December 13, 2019), SW 136th Street Project update - Pinecrest Meeting held December 11, 2019. Here is the report I received:

I reported on the Pinecrest community meeting held regarding the changed project. Over 20 people were in attendance, some were Palmetto Bay residents. Pinecrest officials were there. I am told that Palmetto  Bay was represented by District 3 Council Member Marsha Matson, who is advocating for a mega sidewalk for all of Palmetto Bay. [see a PRIOR RELATED POST of October 2019: Foreshadowing - for now, please review the Palmetto Bay Path conceptual Plan proposed by Marsha Matson, Palmetto Bay Councilmember, District 3, March18, 2019. Please review the Palmetto Bay Path conceptual Plan proposed by Marsha Matson, Palmetto Bay Council Member, District 3, March 18, 2019. (CLICK HERE) to download and view this 23 page document.]

There is no mistaking who owns responsibility for this SW 136th project design - Palmetto Bay officials (2019 to date).

Above. the current project, as redesigned and approved by Palmetto Bay officials (2019 to date)
Below- the original design as approved by Palmetto Bay officials pre-2018.