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.

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 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.

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.

 

 

Opinion - How did this council get to a recommendation in favor of the 480? There once was a procedure to ‘undo’ the 480, but the present mayor and vice mayor appear to have dropped that effort, allowing staff to recommend 480.

As I no longer hold office, I can only offer my opinions as to the ongoing issues relating to the Palmetto Bay Village Center (PBVC). I have always fought to preserve those 22 acres, not see them developed. Twice I asked the council to join me in participating in the purchase through the County Environmentally Endangered Lands Program (EELs).

THE SHORT BITE:

The Vice mayor had the opportunity to repeal the 2016 ordinance relating to the PBVC. Former interim Village Attorney John Herin, Esq. was hired at village expense to advise the council on how to repeal this 2016 ordinance. The repeal ordinance was prepared and passed 3-2 on first reading which was held way back on April 3, 2017.  This was a special council meeting that was called (requested by the vice mayor) for Independence Day weekend, 2017, (yes, a Saturday, July 1, 2017) – Soon after - and inexplicably, the second reading was deferred by a 5-0 vote. (CLICK HERE to view the ordinance folder  

The Vice Mayor had the votes to “undo” the 2016 ordinance, beginning on December 5, 2018, if this is really what he desired however the ordinance was never brought forward for enactment. In a complete 180,  the Staff operating under Mayor Cunningham and Vice Mayor is now recommending approval of the 480.

Failure to follow through has led to the PBVC seeking the present zoning on the 2016 & 2018 ordinances. It did not have to come to this had the repeal ordinance been properly and fully pursued. 

Promises not kept?

Also see PRIOR RELATED POST relating to the library parking: June 1, 2020

Correcting the record. The parking easement lasts for as long as a library, community room and Park operate as provided for in Resolution 2008-20. This was approved by the (then) Village Council on February 25th, 2008. Why would they lie, is it intentional or do they honestly don’t know the facts?

Parking is locked in for as long as this library and the park operate. 

THE FULL STORY PROVIDING A BRIEF INTRO & BACKGROUND/CONTEXT

Their fingers are pointing at others in deflection, but this is just another clear example where the buck stops at Mayor Cunningham and Vice Mayor John DuBois. The Vice Mayor spent village tax dollars to obtain a written legal opinion from John Herin, Esq, former interim village attorney as far back as March 2017. The result was  a 14 page treatise stating that the 2016 ordinance can be undone and providing the road map on how to do it.  The vice mayor felt strong enough that significant village funds were spent to obtain this legal opinion as an effort to undo the 2016 ordinance. Yet it moved forward and passed on first reading and then it stopped after a single deferral. This ordinance would have rescinded, undoing the 2016 ordinance.

The 2016 ordinance:

Then Mayor Shelley Stanczyk had sponsored an ordinance in July of 2014 that would have permitted the immediate development of 40 units in the 22 acres as well as a fire station. A little noticed fact was the July 2014 ordinance would have placed these 22 acres into the VMU, which would have vested the PBVC with 10 units per acre for a potential total build out of  220 units on those 22 acres. See: May 5, 2016, The facts regarding council action of Mon, 5/2/16. Protecting endangered land, managing vest rights inherited from Miami-Dade County.

The 2016 ordinance was passed not to create more units, but merely to transfer the developmental rights (known as TDRs) from the 22 acres to the back area of the Palmetto Bay Village Center (PBVC). This area was created as what is known as the Village Mixed Use, or VMU district. No one (except apparently Mayor Stanczyk) has ever wanted to see those 22 acres developed. 

Saving the 22 acres through transferring the developmental rights (TDR) is one way, but obviously not the way that the Vice Mayor felt appropriate.  In fact, at one time the ordinance was proceeding through the 2016-18 village council – the ordinance passed 3-2 on first reading held April 3, 2017. A special council meeting was called (requested by the vice mayor) for Independence Day weekend, 2017, (yes, a Saturday, July 1, 2017) – where, inexplicably, the second reading was deferred by a 5-0 vote. (CLICK HERE to view the ordinance folder  

More importantly – the Vice Mayor had the votes to “undo” the 2016 ordinance, beginning on December 5, 2018, if this is really what he desired however  Du Bois did not change back the 2016 ordinance. In a complete 180,  the Staff operating under Mayor Cunningham and Vice Mayor DuBois is now recommending approval of the 480.

The inexplicable in-action runs in stark contrast to what we heard from them in both the 2016 or 2018 elections.

Perhaps it is really the current Mayor and Vice Mayor who have turned their backs on Palmetto Bay!

There once was plenty of time for Mayor Cunningham/Vice Mayor DuBois administration to follow the March 2017 repeal manual provided by John Herin, Esq. There have been 78 meetings with the new council (and we all know there is nothing that prevents this current mayor and council from calling yet another special council meeting) – and yet this council never discussed it or let out a peep during any of them. Yes, though it made for great campaign fodder, the Mayor Cunningham/Vice Mayor DuBois administration never got around to doing anything to ‘fix’ this 480.

Results - there was no action to keep promises to 'undo' the "485"! 

So here we are – the Mayor Cunningham/Vice Mayor administration is recommended 480! Village paid traffic and zoning experts provide evidence in support of the Palmetto Bay Village Center. Instead of having done their jobs, the backs of these two were turned. Fingers pointing. I am waiting for their voices to blast through their proxy psudeo concerned group in their best ventriloquism act through email. And not only are they taking the 22 acres that I fought for and he argued against, but they are buying up the 18 acres we all agree are undevelopable (and not useable for park). 

Does this show laziness on his part or is this an admission that I have been right all along?

Why do I opine that the Vice Mayor never wanted the 22 acres? From his own comment in an e-mail wherein he specifically stating that it would be very unlikely to ever be any foot traffic through what he describes as a “mosquito infested park”. The Vice Mayor characterizes the entire “40 acre village park” as follows:

a. The 22 acres is discussed above, the other area is 18 acres of wetlands that will never be developed for anything nor will there likely be foot traffic through there as a mosquito infested park.

b. The 22 acres in question has had poor maintenance over the years and will require a tremendous amount of taxpayer money to bring it up the standards of a Palmetto Bay park property and then maintain it. IMHO, the current developer should be fined for neglect or be forced to bring it up to reasonable standards (at a bare minimum, trim back all 3000 foot frontage on Old Cutler road away from the bike trail). Is it $20K/year or $200K/year of village taxpayer money that will support it. Look at Thalatta Park, we were sold at $40K/year to maintain it, the village spent under two million dollars over the first 8 years for maintenance and to make needed improvements to it.

There you have it – 78 meetings where it was the Vice Mayor who firmly turned his back on Palmetto Bay. One has to wonder if the Zoning hearing of 6/2 was really unable to go forward or if the Mayor Cunningham/Vice Mayor DuBois administration finally woke up once they started receiving complaints and needed time to regroup and revise (or reverse)  the staff recommendations of their handpicked interim staffers.

The wagons are circled and their campers are gearing up for their volley of blame, smear and innuendo, but the facts remain. Its more than the numbers – 480 is the unit number. 78 is for the number of meetings where they could of, but failed to act, 40 (or 38) is the number for acres of land that the Vice Mayor has never wanted to take, but is there for the transfer.

Gamesmanship. Thankfully even in politics, the facts and truth sometimes rise to the top. They could delay it, but the realities of the Mayor Cunningham/Vice Mayor DuBois administration should now be obvious to those keeping a close eye on this village and the internal politics of shame.

In other words, either a sincere apology is due or someone has some serious explaining to do! The ball has been in their court. Action is long overdue. As I stated, an explanation is in order as to why village money was spend on legal opinion and assistance in reversing the 2016 ordinance, yet it was never completed, despite having the legal assistance as well as the votes to do so.  Their (lack of action) speaks so much louder than their words –or the shallow arguments of their puppet masters who continue to deny that they sat silent when Mayor Stanczyk sponsored the process to actually develop those 22 acres in 2014.

LUXCOM - Tuesday, July 14, 2020 is mediation day. a day that will set the future of development in Palmetto Bay. Some thoughts.

Residents of Palmetto Bay were promised 1 unit an acre at the LUXCOM property, formerly known as the FPL property. So how is that working out?This is another of a series of updates relating to this land use issue that may set a precedent for years to come.

The "mediation" is set for Tuesday, July 14, 2020. I put the quotes around mediation as there is no Bert J Harris claim lawsuit filed, at least yet. Pre-suit mediation do happen by agreement of parties, but the fact of this matter is that this matter could have been worked in the public through a zoning hearing, where residents could have attended and put in their testimony, their input into the final numbers. 

At last check, the negotiations offered by Palmetto Bay officials included the following:

• 145 units (which is significantly more than the 1 unit per acre limitation imposed by Palmetto Bay - promised to residents by this mayor and council)
• Revert the zoning back to "institutional" but specifically excluding a use for a hospital, or
• Participate in binding arbitration

The one unit an acre zoning was represented as fully defensible by both the Mayor Cunningham and Vice Mayor DuBois. If this is true, then why the offer for significantly more units? Once again, the issue is whether this promise and council action - setting one unit an acre - will be aggressively defended or will the political realities and promise breaking rear its ugly head once again. 

Perhaps this is less about political promises, but in reality demonstrates that the current administration is out of their depth, unable to fully grasp zoning issues and property rights.

Should the council exceed 1 unit an acre? The bottom line: LUXCOM has few true expectations of unit rights. Why?

• They purchased a property known to be contaminated. A known health risk not just to the site, but to surrounding areas.
• Due to the contamination, there is a valid argument for ZERO units per acre.
• The majority of the site had only been used for power plant production, not residential (and is also the reason for the contamination).
• The area to the north is in a differing jurisdiction, Coral Gables - which has its own zoning / land use codes, rules & regulations; what I considered to be a 'hard wall' against liberally applying any trend of development into Palmetto Bay.
• The area and few houses (caretaker houses) were zoned 5 unit and 1 unit per acre in the applicable close proximity. This would support reasonable zoning decisions of between 15 - 65 units on this entire property.
• Hearings were held on the legislation establishing the 1 unit per acre designation.
• (There are many more reasons not included here)

LUXCOM is significant. This may be the first time ever that a Palmetto Bay mayor and council upzone any property, increasing density. This property has important distinctions from the Palmetto Bay Village Center (PBVC). First of all, back in the 1980s, the PBVC won a court-order right (against Miami-Dade) to over 1,400 residential units on the 80 acres long before Palmetto Bay residents ever though of becoming a municipality. Palmetto Bay officials have worked hard to whittle down the number of units over time. LUXCOM is an attempt to actually INCREASE the number of units.

But now is not the time to interject, let's see what happens. Perhaps Palmetto Bay Village Officials will keep their promises and fight to reign this project in and keep the 1 unit an acre designation that was promised to the voters, the residents of Palmetto Bay.

Fair questions:

• How long will we be kept in the dark as to any agreement reached at this mediation? 
• Will an impasse be announced the same day? 
• Will a proposed settlement be announced or will we have to wait until the proposed settlement is released in an agenda for a special council zoning meeting to approve the proposed settlement? 
• What happens if a majority of the Village Council rejects that proposed settlement, or, 
• One possible result being talked about - an announcement that no agreement was reached; that an update mediation will take place after the respective attorneys confer with their respective clients (one possible translation: pushed off until after the upcoming elections).

PREDICTION: Mediation will start, but will suspend and reset for another day further down the road, preferably after the upcoming elections.

Palmetto Bay - salvage what you can before the door actually closes on the traffic circle for 174 and 87th Avenue

Experience matters as does maturity. It is time for Palmetto Bay to move forward on the Traffic Circle – and this should be done before the 4-way stop signs are removed and the “do not block the box (intersection)" paint is placed on 87 avenue. This change is currently scheduled for January 17, 2020 - just days from this post. The Palmetto Bay lawsuit seeking injunctive relief is not going anywhere and it will go nowhere – at least anywhere productive. 

It is easy for our current members of the Palmetto Bay Village Council to talk tough and hide behind a lawsuit. It is harder to make the right choice, even if it is far from an easy choice. After all, bad litigation allows Mayor Cunningham and the Village Council to scapegoat; to blame the courts for the adverse rulings or others (and boy, does this current mayor and council love to sit back and do nothing but delay and point fingers at others!). 

The facts:

• The County basically ignored the lawsuit, VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, FLORIDA VS MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, case number 019-031036-CA-01, case filed 10/18/2019.
• The lawsuit was very weak, particularly as the alleged facts “verified” (sworn to on the complaint filed) by Karyn Cunningham where she verified unsupported allegations made in the lawsuit that were not based upon an actual traffic expert. Not that this would have made a big difference, but it would have provided something of substance for a Judge to consider at an initial hearing for a preliminary injunction.
• There were obviously no grounds for a preliminary injunction (something that would have alleviated the need for pre-suit dispute resolution and allowed for the injunction - until the case can progress on the merits). The current Village Attorney has not even seen fit to file anything with the court post conflict resolution meeting of 12/12/2019.
• The County pushed back hard at the Dispute resolution conference. (see letter pictured here) and see: January 7, 2020, South Dade Updates Guest Blog- view of the 12/12/2019 Palmetto Bay / Miami-Dade County conflict resolution proceeding
• Palmetto Bay officials have all but admitted to the fact that this lawsuit is baseless, which can be argued by the fact that the current village attorney has not filing anything with the court to advise that the conflict meeting was held and seeking the injunction to prevent removal of the signs currently scheduled for this week, January 17, 2020. The lawsuit simply sits there, untended, which is a reflection of how useless a tool this suit is to force the county to maintain the 4-way stop.
  
  Here is the short version, cutting to the chase, as to what was offered at this meeting of 12/12/2019:

Miami-Dade County officials offered to do 1 of 2 things:

1.  Remove the stop signs and paint a "do not block" (the "box") at the intersection, (see posted pictures for an example) or 
2.  Miami-Dade County will fund and install a traffic circle at 174 and 87th Avenue.

It is time for Mayor Cunningham and, if not her, the others on the village council to face reality and take some action based upon the facts and not their political pandering. 

THE FACT – there is a resolution ready and waiting. The County’s offer of to fund and build a traffic circle at 174 and 87th Avenue is still available – if Cunningham and Co gets out of the way and allows the proper response to the dangerous intersection. My advice to them: ‘when in a hole (and mayor, you are deep in this hole) STOP DIGGING!’ See Law of Holes.

I originally asked this question on December 12, 2019, and nothing good has happened over the month relative to this issue:

FAIR QUESTION: How do our village officials feel their aggressive negotiation through threats and litigation is proceeding, is it effective so far?  Does Mayor Cunningham feel that this process will provide the results worth the probable negative impact on joint projects planned for other areas of Palmetto Bay?  Will we need to litigate all these projects?

TRAFFIC RELIEF PLANS ARE GLOBALLY ON HOLD: Planned traffic relief set for implementation in early 2019 has come to a screeching halt – Malbrook, 152/77th Area, Old Cutler Road (south of 168th), Farmers Road/Old Cutler North, bike lanes for SW 136 Street (morphing to an enlarged sidewalk solely borne by Palmetto Bay residents), as well as the right turn lane on Ludlum, turning right onto eastbound Old Cutler Road – all currently off the rails. See October 17, 2018, Update on Palmetto Bay Traffic Projects - and further updates will be posted as available 

Well?
Grassroots government: INTERESTING POINT – unique to local government. This current Palmetto Bay Village Council has created another first – a local government where the County Mayor and other County Officials get more done through meeting with involved residents than the current elected officials. Not a good sign for anyone looking for any relevance of results from Palmetto Bay officials.

Perhaps this credibility gap is caused by Palmetto Bay officials negotiating and reaching 'agreements' only to renege on that promise (as occurred when the traffic  circle and other projects agreed to were voted down by the village council). 

Again, this litigation will go nowhere productive. Dismiss it and allow Miami-Dade County to fund and install a traffic circle at 174 and 87th Avenue.

The choice (far from 'Sophie's choice') as demonstrated through photos below (but it may be more of a 'Hobson's choice').

Photos above demonstrate the options for Palmetto Bay on 87th Av at 174:

"Do Not Block" paint versus landscaped traffic circle. Which looks and performs better?

PAST RELEVANT POSTS – the ‘toolbox’ on this issue. 

January 7, 2020, What is next for traffic management in Palmetto Bay. I missed a report if there was one on Jan 6. Where is the plan?

January 3, 2020, Waiting for Palmetto Bay’s official response – Cutler Bay site alleges that the 174/87th 4 way stop to be removed January 17. Where is the announcement, what about the lawsuit? - There is just no other way to say it - Mayor Cunningham and the Village Council tell you only what they want you to know. You need to look elsewhere for most information. 

December 5, 2019, Meeting noticed: Conflict Assessment Meeting set in Village of Palmetto Bay vs. Miami-Dade County, Florida, for 2:00 PM, Thursday, December 12, 2019, at Village Hall, as well as:

October 25, 2019, Thoughts on the most recent litigation FILED by the village: Good faith or is this a less than good faith attempt to avoid a deal that the Mayor and Council had no authority to make?

December 10, 2019, Agenda for the Conflict Resolution/Mediation set for 2:00 PM, Thursday, 12/12/19. Agenda includes public comment. Should you/must you go to state your position. Fair questions in advance.
November 20, 2019, Litigation Update. Court approves agreement between Palmetto Bay & Miami-Dade County to stay proceedings pending exhaustion of conflict resolution procedures

We all are waiting to see how this plays out. We could have at least had a traffic circle, funded by Miami-Dade County. We will now, as things stand now, have the "Do Not Block The Box" paint. Hardly as effective, but that is just my opinion.