Follow up. Helllloooo, McFly? Bueller,... Bueller? Anyone hear the real reason for canceling Palmetto Bay's annual Independence Day celebration yet?

The drama continues to build - release the Shores files! Helllloooo, McFly? Bueller,... Bueller? Great movies and fun to quote - but running government is important business to be taken seriously and fair questions have been asked as to the real reason for canceling Palmetto Bay's annual Independence Day celebration. Any updates yet?

Vice Mayor Mark Merwitzer has been following up for residents - he asked the important question to staff - in this case whether the Shores at Palmetto Bay has even been issued a building permit. This question was asked at the Village Council meeting held July 21, 2025. See the video excerpt below - the full meeting is available on the village website.

The answer given was that the Shores property has not received a building permit; that the Shores has not yet paid the impact fees.

So then - construction was not imminent, not before July 4th or even now, after this event should have taken place - so how is this alleged planned construction a viable excuse to cancel a major beloved beloved community event? 

SEE PRIOR RELATED POST OF Thursday, July 10, 2025, Full disclosure requested - what was the real reason for canceling Palmetto Bay's annual Independence Day celebration?

You have questions.  We'd like real answers.

Opinion: Happy Independence Day - but where is collaboration from Palmetto Bay?

This should be another outstanding Independence Day and long weekend. The United States was formed a country that was initially made up of the original 13 colonies - which eventually grew over the last 249 years to our current 50 States with five major U.S. territories consisting of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Together, the USA is what is termed a federal republic: the 50 states, a federal district and the territories.

Palmetto Bay is not an Island.  We are part of a chain of over overlapping governments.  Palmetto Bay exists with our Federal, State and County governments.  So why the history lesson? Well, because I think it is due as we appear to have a local government that is demonstrating poor taste in refusing to work with the County in celebrating our national Independence Day.

For back ground - please review my prior post of June 26, 2025, Palmetto Bay drops our community Independence Day celebration - so County Commissioner Danielle Cohen Higgins steps up. It is a relatively short read and includes information regarding a local event that we, Palmetto Bay, should be participating in - just across the street at the Palmetto Golf Course.

The question I am seeking answer to is why Palmetto Bay officials appear to refuse to partner with our County Commissioner on this Independence Day celebration?  That is just out of bounds in my opinion.  Palmetto Bay officials should show some leadership and provide some services to our residents this weekend. Here is what I suggest should be done:

1. Put the Palmetto Bay IBus in action - shuttle our residents from points within Palmetto Bay to the Palmetto Golf Course.  Palmetto Bay has done this with our own home grown event - an event that had limited parking - certainly this same shuttle service would be of great benefit to our residents!  Our residents are now the ones who are forced to try to make good on an event that will have limited parking (I was advised that there will be overflow parking at Coral Reef Senior High - not sure if there is a shuttle - but don't plan on shuttle service). The Ibus has been provided to the County for use at the Deering Seafood Festival - how is this County Independence Day event any less worthy?

2. Assist the County or create our own bike and golf cart route to the event.  I plan on attending via bike - taking the safer back streets up to the intersection of 89th at 152 Street. That is where travel will get complicated. It is my understanding that the Miami-Dade County Sheriff's office will have officers working at the US1/152 intersection to allow for crossing at this very dangerous intersection.  (By the way, if you bike - I know of no bike racks at the golf course - but there are some at the Coral Reef Library as well as the bike stations provided for the busway). Our Palmetto Bay Police Unit should be there - treat the Commissioner's event as a Palmetto Bay event - and promote safe travel (motor vehicle, pedestrian, golf cart and bicycle) for this event.

3. Palmetto Bay officials should be "all in" - promoting this event rather than relegating people to homegrown and therefore unsupervised fireworks.

Next - let's restore our tradition of Palmetto Bay's hometown Independence Day celebration for future years!

This event was much more than 20 minutes of fireworks. It was a nearly day long event where our residents gathered and enjoyed music, food and drink, face painting, child rides, contests - a true community event that was so much more than the aforementioned fireworks. Local businesses were present and we had sponsors. Why disappoint the families, the kids? It could have been done - it should have been put on without the fireworks for just this year as the loss of the Shores property has been expected for years.  This was simply poor planning for this eventuality - or worse - more scapegoating or excuse making to rid themselves of an event they just did not feel like hosting anymore. 

Perhaps our local officials became embarrassed by the Downtown Independence Day celebration as one of the purposes was to show off the positive downtown development - that once had vision - a vision for multi-use with local family friendly small shops and restaurants - an actual entertainment district.  That vision was stripped however and the downtown is little more than walk up apartments with little to know mixed use.

I could go on, but we are about to enter our annual Independence Day and I will celebrate it even if our village offices decide to drop our event and snub the County's event.  The current even sent our an email blast Thursday morning making no reference to the County event at Palmetto Golf Course - Its almost as if she either resents it or is hoping it fails. I suggest that fellow residents attend the event at the Palmetto Golf Course. 

Be safe this weekend.  Enjoy our Independence Day!

Opinion: Are we really getting to the end result of the development of the Palmetto Bay Village Center? Performative politics and the violation of Bert J Harris results in the MEGA PBVC.

The FACTS regarding the Palmetto Bay Village Center.

How did Palmetto Bay get to the point where it is offering up so much new density on the 80 acre property? Well, in the past, Palmetto Bay residents and officials worked hard to find a palatable solution (see prior posts relating to the Burger King World Headquarters Charrette and the over 42 meetings).  But while some labored in good faith, other political opportunists saw the potential of his property as a political football -- and assumed that voters were too stupid to realize that the property owner had some rights and would be able to build something.  Unfortunately, they threw rocks, promised to "stop the development" but never - ever - came up with a plan to stop it.  Instead, their lack of vision. lack of leadership and most of all - their lack of knowledge as to when to stop digging resulted in this current MEGA plan never contemplated under the 2008, 2016, or any other plan considered previously.  The Palmetto Bay Village Center (PBVC) matter came off the rails on January 24, 2022 when the mayor at the time (the present mayor) and the council adopted Village Resolution No. 2022-05.  This was the resolution from which the courts determined that the Village (current Mayor) VIOLATED the property rights of the owners of the PBVC. And please, when reading, note the specifics as to what the owners of the PBVC sought in that application - 480 units (and I have documented how it should have been many fewer) , no hotel, no additional commercial over what is presently proposed for approval (code named the MEGA enchilada)!

Current council rock throwing over working to present their own plan!

The current plan is a settlement - not a zoning hearing - a settlement of a significant Bert J Harris claim that APPROVES much more development over the rights of the residents not because any prior officials took any action, but because the current mayor dug the holes that we, the residents, find ourselves in because she never took any appropriate action to work with the owners to formulate anything palatable - more on that later - but the village is about to see the unfortunate results when officials are elected who could only throw rocks at the efforts and plans of those who stood up to the issue. The current group never never attempt anything meaningful.  Of course, we now see that the current mayor can throw rocks at the ground - and still miss!

More on Bert J Harris - See my prior related post of January 17, 2020 - A medium length primer on Bert J. Harris Act claims. What we can expect (including a timeline). Link to Bert J Harris Act provided. 

What Could Have Been

The PBVC issue predates the incorporation of Palmetto Bay.  I was in negotiation prior to December 5, 2018.  At that time, the owners of Palmetto Bay Village Center had agreed to preserve the environmentally sensitive land at the front of the property and construct a number that would have been not "the 485,"but rather, a representative for the PBVC offered a compromise number of 450 - 470. I contend that this was their starting point in these negotiations and the unit numbers would have dropped lower (Again, it is important to note that the Bert J Harris Claim arose out of the property rights violations created by the mayor and council in place for Resolution No. 2022-05).  The representative for the PBVC also mentioned in 2018 that negotiations had been ongoing for 200 -- half of the units -- to be Senior housing units. That's a HUGE offer in regard to traffic reduction.

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

What Now?

Now, after years of expensive litigation, rock throwing and scapegoating, the Palmetto Bay Village Council appears ready to cave and give the owners of the Palmetto Bay Village Center the APPROVAL to construct a much larger MEGA project -- with commercial never anticipated, in addition to the absolute maximum number of residential units. The Village's refusal to negotiate (because, presumably, they wanted to be seen as taking a tough stance against development) has led to massive increases in development - not prior action.

Yes, it is clear that none of those rocks thrown at the ground (or the PBVC) ever hit the mark. Just cheap political grandstanding covering up a lack of understanding of the issues that will profoundly impact our community.

Just please Palmetto Bay officials - take some positive action - and admit your foibles - and what ever you do, avoid going to court!

Development by unsupportable political denials rarely works for election officials -and area residents suffer. As noted in prior opinion posts, Things have not gone well for the Village of Palmetto Bay before the Miami-Dade trial and Appellate Division of the 11th Circuit Court - and the Third District Court of Appeal.  They promised "no development" but their litigation stumbles more aptly reflects "hold my beer" on granting massive development rights.

Read up on the Appellate Division ruling against Palmetto Bay in a strongly worded 31 page opinion that reversed the denial of the PBVC zoning decision.

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

See: my prior related opinion post of December 13, 2023 - Court slaps down Palmetto Bay's zoning appeal -- more units for Old Cutler Road DENIED.  The Third District Court of Appeals ruled against the Village of Palmetto Bay.  Having lost - badly - in the efforts on appeal (review via Petitions for Cert for those who want to be sticklers for technicalities) - the Village had no bargaining power left. Read the order cited in that post - "hold my beer" id far too kind. 

This development did not materialize overnight - it took a massive amount of misdirected passive aggressive inaction from January 2019 to date to reach this point. 

Simply stated - don't blame the VUM or any amending ordinances. Blame the council for violating Bert J Harris - and that is a very tough thing to do!. They dug this deep hole and this MEGA development is the result stems from performative politics and lack of vision. The plan is a settlement of transgressions of those who let the village down when Resolution No. 2022-05 was enacted.

(Lack of) Leadership 101 - allowing the community to be ravaged by infighting rather than bringing people together

“Sooner or later everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences.” 

– Robert Louis Stevenson.

They say elections have consequences.  We are seeing it play out locally.  Bully politics at play. Palmetto Bay is definitely not a "Bully Free Zone".   See a prior related post: May 9, 2024, Palmetto Bay News - Op-Ed: Rudeness and bullying should not be the norm in Palmetto Bay By Marsha Matson, Village of Palmetto Bay Councilmember, District 3 -May 8, 2024

Yet we the taxpayers are destined to fund another lawsuit - all because the mayor and council refuse to avoid pettiness. 

What am I talking about? Well, in case you missed it:

For more insight provided in an opinion blast by the Palmetto Bay Neighbors Alliance: "They Hate You For Choosing Mark  CLICK HERE for the complete blast - here is an excerpt:

Mayor Cunningham's ally, Councilman Steve Cody, didn't like your answer. So he filed a lawsuit claiming Mark wasn't properly sworn in. Our Village Attorney has said many times that Mark's oath was completely valid. The village even paid over $6,000 of your tax money to hire another expert who said the same thing.

Our Village Attorney didn't mince words. He warned that "Steve will be lucky to stay out of jail when this is over" because of his "toxic vitriol" and "fabrications." The Village Attorney has been a lawyer since 1979. He knows what he's talking about. Meanwhile, Mr. Cody is a suspended attorney by the Florida Bar and is ineligible to practice law.

Don't be fooled. The oath story is just a smokescreen. Mayor Cunningham and Cody want to erase your vote.

They're not really fighting Mark. They're fighting you. They hate that you chose someone Mayor Cunningham didn't pick. They hate that you wanted change. They think they know better than you about who should lead our village.

Cody's legal filing, which he’s trying to get a ruling on, claims Leanne Tellam is still Vice Mayor. Tellam was Mayor Cunningham's preferred candidate and lost the election.

Lets see where this leads us and how much in will cost, both in tax dollars as well as further aggravation to our community.

A Vice Mayor who actually cares. Traffic circle safety - fighting distracted driving. Let him lead - his talents are serving our village

Vice Mayor Mark Merwitzer - a product of our village who has worked hard to for his chance to serve - and who is making the most of it, when others on the council are more concerned about accumulating perks or taking selfies.

There are important safety issues that need to be discussed by our council. Instead, Palmetto Bay residents rarely find anything useful on village social media - its more targeted to photos of the mayor and selected council members taken at past village social events. 

Vice Mayor Merwitzer is focuses on village safety.  Past history has shown is interest for the people. This is a reboot of a blog post from August 14, 2017. 

Traffic Circle Safety - Please take the time to view this creative video by Mark Merwitzer, Jackson Ribler & Justin Merwitzer. Edited and produced through the talents of "Miami Hal" Feldman.

Our Palmetto Bay youth stepped up and prepared this outstanding video.  

This is outstanding work by Mark Merwitzer, Jackson Ribler & Justin Merwitzer. 

Edited and produced through the talents of "Miami Hal" Feldman. 

Drive safe Palmetto Bay.

Here are some stills from the effort, filmed Sunday, 8/13/2017:

Michael Miller speaks with Mark Merwitzer, Vice Mayor of Palmetto Bay - Tuesday - 2-25-2025

A must view.  The video is just under 30 minutes. 

Thank you Vice Mayor Merwitzer for attempting to bring back transparency and accountability to the Village of Palmetto Bay.

Some highlights (or lowlights depending upon your view): 

$6,000.00 has been spent due to a council member's rampage. The $6K confirms the opinion of the Village Attorney.

Tanglewood property - a majority of the Village Council has restored transparency and accountability.  It was disclosed how the county was managing surplus land - in this case - the FPL Easement Land at SW 77th Avenue and approx. 140 Street.  Over $132,000 of village tax dollars were spent on lobbying for this property (against the residents/surrounding landowners). It is the Vice Mayor's opinion that (go to the 9:00 minute mark of the video) the procurement code was bypassed.  "monitoring opposition activities" were raised as part of the takes assigned the lobbying firm. Furthermore - an unknown person or organization paid for a "push poll" - incorrectly insinuating that the land was to be sold for private developers.  The surrounding residents are NOT private developers.

The Vice Mayor is committed to bringing back the Neighborhood Protection Committee.  I briefly served on this committee until I was removed.  The entire committee was eventually shut down.  This was unfortunate. 

Transparency alert! - Check out 17:00 of the video.  A journalist notified Vice Mayor Merwitzer that Palmetto Bay was the only municipality not to share wage and benefit information for elected officials - apparently the Village Mayor and Council Members have allowed themselves to receive a "car allowance" of $400 per month. Does anyone here recall this ever being disclosed publicly; including approving such a major perk during the budget process? 

Transit on the ballot in Miami-Dade as officials look to expand Metromov...

See Channel 10 online for the full story - excerpts below:

MIAMI – Advocates say Miami-Dade voters have a choice on the Aug. 20 ballot.

“More highways, more congestion, or a new option?” Mark Merwitzer, with Transit Alliance Miami, said.

A measure on the primary ballot includes a non-binding question about expanding rapid transit in the county, specifically the existing Metromover and Metrorail systems.

It comes as choking congestion prompts county commissioners to look at elevated rail along the county’s East-West Corridor: a Metromover expansion along Flagler Street to Florida International University.

“The number one complaint about quality of life in Miami-Dade County is the traffic,” Merwitzer said. “Traffic is a nightmare and public transit is the solution to that.”

Miami-Dade County Commissioner Eileen Higgins summed it up thusly: “People are trapped in traffic.”

see Channel 10 Miami - As congestion chokes Miami-Dade, transit on ballot as officials ponder Metromover to FIU

EDITOR'S NOTE: I am not sure how I will vote.  I am far from pleased as to how the current half cent sales tax is being (mis)spent. I'd like to send a message and vote NO, but they will play the vote how they want to, regardless of the results.

UPDATE: I am posting a screen shot of the County Straw Ballot question.  Do we really need to answer it? The answer is obvious. But note that this does nothing toward upgrading South Dade with anything elevated, which the prior mayors of Pinecrest, Palmetto Bay and Cutler Bay fought for.  This locks South Miami-Dade into the bus; but now with the old fashioned Railroad style crossing gates (talk about antiquated technology). 

I may have found the reason why the current mayor and council remove so many trees - Dendrophobia

Palmetto Bay is not blessed with a Lorax council. Trees have been removed for horrible projects such as the SW 136Street multi-path.  Several trees in the way of her bridge project were actually smothered and then removed at Coral Reef Park – as well as failing to protect trees hundreds of years old throughout the village such as the huge Oak in the Morningside neighborhood (near Franjo Road) or all along the Old Cutler Road.  What is wrong with this tree hating council? 

Well, I have formed my own opinion: Dendrophobia - the fear of trees. Is this what drives the current mayor and the members of the village council to remove so many trees? 

I looked up this condition on the Cleveland Clinic website - https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22587-dendrophobia-fear-of-trees

Here is what I found on that website:

Dendrophobia is a fear of trees. People with this specific phobia feel anxious when they think about or see a tree. Many people with tree phobia have had negative experiences with trees. You can overcome a phobia of trees with exposure therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, dialectical behavior therapy and other treatments.

Someone with dendrophobia may be afraid of:

Dangers hidden in trees, such as spiders, scorpions or snakes.
Encountering trees after dark.
Shadows made by trees.
Sounds of leaves rustling in the wind.
Tree branches or entire trees falling on them.
Tripping over tree roots. (a real concern presently at our parks - see photo right)
Walking or driving near or underneath trees.

Or maybe the mayor and council members suffered traumatic loses of their kites – to kite eating trees – when they were younger.

So perhaps there is an explanation for this tree hating behavior.

via GIPHY

Congratulations - huge public outcry forces the village to save the tree - after they said it couldn't be done. Coral Reef Park update

Question – how many voices does it take to force the mayor and village council to do the right thing?

Answer – over 730 voices involved in a viral online petition.

Who are the real heroes here?  Over 730 people plus the three who truly lead the charge. Thank you to all those who spoke up in person, in emails and in the online petition that became a tsunami forcing the council to reverse court and promise to do what the manager said could not be done.

Thank you once again to Council Member Dr. Marsha Matson, who has become the Lone Ranger to Palmetto Bay residents.  She acts on behalf of the residents when the current mayor and remaining council members sit in stone silence, oblivious in the face of needed action.

Dr. Matson was a catalyst of this latest action – remember we all were told that (check the video snippet – provided courtesy of A Better Palmetto Bay)

Dr. Matson:        Can the multi-purpose building in Coral Reef Park be moved to save the old tree?

Manager:            I don’t think at this point it can, ma'am. And we have briefed for the past year that that there were a number of trees that we going to be removed.

FAIR QUESTIONS:           
1. When was a landscaping plan presented to the public? (SPOILER ALERT – It wasn’t).
2. Why were no other members of the village council, including the mayor, following up and showing any interest or concern for the tree(s) at this meeting (or at any other time)? (SPOILER ALERT – because they didn't care until the viral online petition hit 700 signatures.)

We, the people, want government to be brought out from under the shade and into the sunshine, not the passive areas of our parks through the destruction of our precious tree canopy.

THE OBVIOUS TAKEAWAY – the manager stated that for the past year, they have advised as to tree removal – and only the Lone Ranger, Dr. Matson, has ever raised an issue with saving trees.  Wow.  Watch the video.  Only Dr. Matson is active and engaged. The remaining members of the council are disengaged, actively disinterested, staring into space or reading papers or from their electronic devices. So it fell to grass roots – led by Mark Merwitzer, Pam Gorman and Palmetto Bay’s Lone Ranger.  The Mayor and council had the chance to involve the public, but they squandered the opportunity to allow the public to participate in important decisions.

Thank you Mark Merwitzer, who is active and energetic, as opposed to those stodgy members of the council who have no ideas and no ability to follow up and represent the people when staff is attempting to move items forward.  Far too many members of this council are there for the paychecks and benefits that they have awarded themselves. They don’t want to take any action, accepting the will of the staff.

He has the will and ability to be the voice of the people.

And Thank you Pam Gorman, who initiated the petition and rallied so many concerned residents to the cause.

No one would be evening learning of the proposed fate of the trees, or would have had a voice in this matter, had it not been for the leadership and determination of these three.  They were instrumental in this fight.

Action matters more than words.  This fight is not over until all the paperwork is completed. we need to remember that this fight is not over. We must remain vigilant and ensure Mayor Cunningham and the other Village Council Members follows through on the (appropriate) flip flop to now save this the tree. Let us hope that this success translates into a new policy, reversing this administration's terrible record and the countless trees they have destroyed in the name of development, we cannot afford to take her word at face value.

Remember - elections matter.

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

Thank you, readers, – for the feedback on one of my recent posts regarding civility. I am sure there are more questions than I received personally, so I will address the general conversation I had over the weekend. I was asked about the enforceability of the Palmetto Bay Ordinances. The topic was stimulated by my blog post of Friday, May 10, 2024.

It was, perhaps, a mistake to use the term “rules” as the rules discussed in the post are contained in an Ordinance.

And yes, an Ordinance differs from a resolution.  State Law defines them both in Section 166.041:

(a) “Ordinance” means an official legislative action of a governing body, which action is a regulation of a general and permanent nature and enforceable as a local law. 

(b) “Resolution” means an expression of a governing body concerning matters of administration, an expression of a temporary character, or a provision for the disposition of a particular item of the administrative business of the governing body.

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

A short legal opinion on following the rules is Yes, an ordinance is a law. Breaking an ordinance is basically breaking a local law for all practical purposes. The question is whether anyone is willing or has the means to enforce that ordinance.  When the Mayor or other members of the village council fail to follow an ordinance, they fail to follow the law.

No Village Official, elected, Charter or staff, - has the right or privilege to ignore or act contrary to any village ordinance.

Bottom line is elections matter and the the failure to follow village ordinances have been documented for you to decide. Some people enjoy it as entertainment, but this is not how elected officials were intended to behave, at least per the Palmetto Bay Ordinances. 

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

Palmetto Bay is definitely not a "Bully Free Zone".   

Council Member Marsha Matson is working hard - on her own - to involve the public - and it is sad that she has to go the route of an op ed piece. She can't do it alone at a meeting as she is but 1/5 of the votes of the council and cannot muster a majority for simple things like holding a town hall meetings for our fellow residents.  

Shameful. This is truly the never ending story.  This is your mayor and council, Palmetto Bay - and all those feel good proclamations and certificates are really just cringeworthy attempts to hide the toxic state of Palmetto Bay politics. Elections matter.

Here is opinion, her update, published online by the Community Newspapers on May 8, 2024:

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

I am a grandmother, who will turn 80 years old this year.  I decided to spend my retirement years serving Palmetto Bay, my community.   I helped found the Village as a municipality in the 1990s and early 2000s and I hold a deep affection for the Village and its residents.

So  I ran for Village Council in 2018 and won.  I liked making laws to help residents like reducing density in our downtown and regulating short-term rentals that disrupted quiet neighborhoods.  I enjoyed it so much that I ran for re-election in 2022 and won with over 60% of the vote, the highest of any village candidate.

In 2022, the Village Council added two new Councilmembers, Vice Mayor Leanne Tellam and Councilmember Steve Cody, who formed a solid majority block with Mayor Karyn Cunningham.  They set about running the village their way.  I did not have a problem with that because in our country, the majority rules while the minority is respected and has a say.   I sometimes disagreed with them and gave my opinion.  Over time, instead of listening to differences of opinion and working together to resolve problems, the majority block became more and more intolerant of dissent.  As I did not always agree with them, I became their target on Council to stamp out any hint of criticism of their policies.

In the last two years, they have intensified their efforts to stop me from asking questions and offering my opinion. You can see them in action by watching the most recent May 6 Council meeting on the Palmetto Bay Village website under public meetings:  https://palmettobay.granicus.com/player/clip/1943

I know it is disturbing to witness the rough tactics the Mayor and Councilmembers use on me.  Of course, it is extremely distressful for me.  What they do goes far beyond politics as usual.  When they perceive that I am going to say something they do not want to hear, they cut me off while speaking, talk over me until I stop, shout  “out of order” to have the attorney demand I quit talking, adjourn before I can speak, ridicule me, prevent me from finishing my sentence, and call me names.  They create a vivid picture of schoolyard bullies, except that they are public officials who, while knowing they are being recorded on video, verbally stomp on me.  In every instance, they succeed in preventing me from talking.

I am not the only person bearing the brunt of their distaste for dissent.  Mayor Cunningham, Vice Mayor Tellam, and Councilmember Cody banned the reading of resident’s emails out loud during Council meetings.  Emails were the most popular way for residents to be involved in village government.  When emails became more critical of them, they silenced them.  They abolished the Neighborhood Protection Committee, a committee that worked to protect residents’ quality of life.

I taught government at the University of Miami for over two decades.  I have a doctorate in political science.   I have a good idea of how democracy is supposed to work.   One of the most treasured principles of our democracy is the right of people to express their views of government leaders, especially when they disagree with what the leaders are doing.  This most sacred right, enshrined in our First Amendment, is under attack in Palmetto Bay.  If you find it hard to believe, I invite you to watch the May 6 Council meeting and witness the successful tactics Mayor Cunningham, Vice Mayor Tellam, and Councilmember Cody use to stop me from saying what they do not want anyone to hear.  This letter is my opinion.

Wait! Who wants to make a bet?

The village Public Relations team (whether you call it PR, Publicity or PIO) pushes out media featuring Mayor Cunningham.  Does anyone have any odds on whether the public information office will be fair and even handed by pushing out this council member's comments to the public?

As they say, "and that my friends, is the rest of the story."

PRIOR RELATED POST

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

Editor Miller raises some serious issues relating to Palmetto Bay’s fiscal accountability, litigation and transparency. The $750,000.00 question.

Currently available on Community Newspapers online: Court rules against the Village of Palmetto Bay in Luxcom case, by Michael Miller, Editor.  $750,000.00 Please, I want to be kept in the loop! My question: Have Palmetto Bay officials spent  more than $750,000 in the different legal matters with Luxcom through October 2021? Obviously that wouldn’t cover all the critical filings leading up to the March 31, 2022, hearing or the Answer and Affirmative Defenses filed late last month. What’s the actual legal bill to date? What is the total budget set aside for this litigation? There are more costs that mere legal. What about overall staff and consultant (administrative) costs that should be associated to this Luxcom matter?

The Palmetto Bay public has a right to know. And the Palmetto Bay elected and staff officials have the duty of candor to the public.  Editor Miller's report raises some alarms as this is not the story that I have been kept in the loop about. This matter has clearly turned into a grudge no holds barred match.  Editor Miller reported on the recent loss that the Palmetto Bay community suffered in court on March 31, 2022.  Background, for those not in the loop, Editor Miller explains that Yacht Club by Luxcom, LLC “… has sued the Village of Palmetto Bay to recover more than $20,000,000.00 in compensation for losses caused by the Village’s efforts to prevent Luxcom from developing its property.

I, myself, have attempted to keep readers in the loop through some of my blog posts (listed at bottom).  Editor Miller reached out for comments from Luxcom, a source we, the people, have not heard from, speaking to a Mr. Barbara, who is the developer of Luxcom.  As Editor Miller explains it: 

When asked about the litigation Mr. Barbara responded – “We are pleased that the Court saw through the Village’s tactics and we look forward to moving vigorously and swiftly with discovery and the preparation for trial in what will be an expensive case with tens of millions of dollars at risk to the Village and its tax payers. As a result of the Court’s ruling, the lawsuit will now proceed forward on its merits, and the Village will finally be held accountable for its conduct and the harm it caused to Luxcom’s property.” 

Barbara added – “additionally, documents obtained through their Public Records Request show that the Village has already spent more than $750,000 in the different legal matters with Luxcom through October 2021, and this case has just begun.”

This is huge and I do believe the taxpaying public is due a full and complete accounting as to the following:

• What has been spent to date on this Luxcom litigation?
• Legal costs versus all staff time, administrative costs.
• What is the projected budget set aside for this Luxcom litigation?
• What are the goals of this litigation?
• What is Luxcom entitled to under the law? 
• What is he village attempting to stop Luxcom from building?
• Will this litigation resolve the issue or is it merely one more step to additional litigation

Transparency and accountability is important as Editor Miller specifically stated that:

“When Mayor Karyn Cunningham was asked to comment about the most recent court ruling, she said that because it was an ongoing case, she could not comment and directed any questions to the Village Attorney.” 

No, that is deflection, avoidance. The people have the right to know. Legal strategy is one thing, but providing a realistic assessment of the goals, costs to date as well as reasonably expected future costs of this litigation is the public’s right to know.

PRIOR RELATED POSTS - LUXCOM LITIGATION:

April 30, 2022, LUXCOM Litigation update. Palmetto Bay files the Answer and Defenses. 14 pages - filed April 28, 2022

April 21, 2022, LUXCOM Litigation update - Transcript of proceedings from March 31, 2022, now available to the public on official court docket

April 18, 2022, Luxcom litigation update - Palmetto Bay's Motion to Dismissal was denied. Case moves forward.

Annexation. The decision is reserved for the voters, not between the five members of the village council. Time has long passed for the current officers to read the rules and follow the process.

The original council (which I am proud to have served on) worked with the Village residents to put a process in place for determining annexations. The process was placed in the Charter in order to prevent future council (like the current mayor and council) from substituting their own judgement on the critical issue of annexation. 

There is an interesting debate going on within one of the community Facebook groups involved with Palmetto Bay (one of the many unofficial groups) regarding annexation and the recent action regarding annexation taken recently. I have to ask the initial question:  Is there anyone on that dais who reads and (more importantly) follow the charter? That includes Charter Officers as well as mayor and council. There is a process to follow that puts the decision in the hands of the village electors who ultimately make the decision whether to move forward to INITIATING the process, not the mayor or village council. It is time to point our current mayor and council to the process that past councils and voters set for them to follow. It is time for the current elected officials to read the Charter, the rules and follow the process.

Palmetto Bay Village Charter,

Section 10.3. Annexation Process.

The Village Council, presented with a petition in accordance with County requirements for annexation of an area, shall vote on the concept of annexation of the area. A four-fifths vote of the Council shall be required in order to proceed with the annexation process. Immediately thereafter, the Village Council will coordinate an election of Village residents to determine whether a plurality of the Village desires to proceed with annexation. If a plurality votes affirmatively, the Village Council would then proceed with a resolution, consistent with the County Annexation procedures, to request initiation of the annexation process, which would provide for the scheduling of an election by the area to be annexed.

This is the process that should have been followed once Resolution2019-65, passed 3-2 on April 1, 2019. Resolution 2019-65 was sponsored by then Council Member David Singer. SPOILER ALERT: The process was not followed in 2019, 2020, 2021 or now in 2022.

Backstory: see February 23, 2022, Palmetto Bay: Indecisiveness. Once again, what's old is now new again, at least in regard to annexation. This is where I discuss the current state of chaos in Palmetto Bay on the issue of annexation. The Palmetto Bay Village Council discussed annexation of the area west of Palmetto Bay’s current boundaries- this time it was at a Committee of the Whole meeting (COW) held Tuesday, 2-22-2022. I don't think any of them  remembered that this is the exact same area submitted to the voters in 2016? Unfortunately I have been here since we first incorporation and I pay attention to what has happened as well as not happened in Palmetto Bay. So allow this blog post to serve as some institutional history on Annexation. Search "annexation" in the search widget.

The reality is appalling, and as they say in politics, they (current mayor and some of the council members) were against it before they were for it. (Or were they for it before they were against it?) The annexation issue did not end with the election results in 2016. Nope. History repeats itself – watching council meetings have become far too similar to watching the movie Groundhog Day, but far less entertaining.

As a reminder, the most recent annexation item was voted down, with only the sponsors vote in favor, will we see yet another flip - flop - flip? It takes approval of 4/5ths to move forward. 3 members of the village council, and that includes the current mayor, will have to flip. Let's see how much staff time this current council will churn to get to a decision point.

Fact checking Palmetto Bay's Social Media - The truth is revealed in a court filing - your voice doesn't matter!

You can learn a lot from reviewing court cases involving the Village of Palmetto Bay. The truth is out and Palmetto Bay has admitted that it it conducts livestreams on Facebook, that they receive comments from viewers in real time,  but that it has no employee, agent, or assign reviewing or monitoring these comments in real time or review any of these comments posted by viewers after the conclusion of the livestreams. Palmetto Bay's social media exists solely as a one-way method of communication, a photo op for the current mayor and members of the village council. 

Latest example: Thousands upon thousands of your tax dollars were spent for a rare air event in Palmetto Bay set to introduce the new Superintendent of schools, set up for a limited number of select residents. Most communities set up these meetings as an open event at a local school auditorium or municipal center where all comers could be accommodated. After all, elected officials were there and this would be a great opportunity to mix and personally hear from the leader of our County public Schools, but alias, not here in Palmetto Bay. The thousands spent and the exclusive location (Thalatta Estate) required this be a closed event.

It wasn't just a use of a park. A tent was specially set up, village employees were diverted to attend to the comfort of the elected official and their select guests as well as the set up and breakdown for the catered event  - all provided courtesy of the taxpayers. 

Those not lucky enough to obtain the Golden Ticket were not allowed inside the velvet rope for the VIP treatment. The consolation price set by Palmetto Bay's leaders were to direct those to view from Facebook (aka, behind the ropes)  out of sight, out of mind. 

No taxpayer funded breakfast for you!  

And Facebook comments? The purpose of commenting is for interaction with the event, but not here in Palmetto Bay under current leadership. Your comments are for naught. They are ignored by officials. The truth is revealed for those of cannot attend events or any village council meeting live, who watch through Facebook or any other event, at no time are your comments reviewed or considered. 

You might as well go outside and yell into the air. Your voice doesn't matter, at least on social media. 

Unconvinced? Review the official VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS filed by on behalf of Palmetto Bay officials in the case of AMADO RODRIGUEZ ET AL VS VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, 2022-000305-CA-01. The Response was filed on April 13, 2022. 

The actual Requests and Responses to those requests:

1. Admit that VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY conducted a livestream on Facebook from its social media accounts.

RESPONSE: Admitted.

2. Admit that VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY conducted a livestream on Facebook from Coral Reef Park on or about May 15,2021.

RESPONSE: Admitted.

3. Admit that VILLAGE OFPALMETTO BAY livestreams receive comments from viewers in real time.

RESPONSE: Admitted.

4. Admit that VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY has no employee, agent, or assign reviewing or monitoring comments on the livestreams, as comments come in in real time.

RESPONSE: Admitted.

5. Admit that VILLAGE OFPALMETTOBAY does not review comments posted by viewers after the conclusion of the livestreams.

RESPONSE: Admitted.

Background:
Question:  What is a Request for Admissions?
Answer:     A Request for Admissions is a set of statements which asks the other party either admit or deny a statement or allegation. The answers are used to narrow the issues for determination by the court or ultimately by a jury is a court case.

Remember this when the current mayor tells you about open government or that 'your voice matters'.

Challenge accepted. Palmetto Bay’s canal bank erosion: Another glaring example of mayor and council bluster at council meetings – for optics – but without follow up as soon as the meeting ends and the cameras go off.

I received significant inquiries (and challenges) relating to the post of Feb 23, 2022: Palmetto Bay: Indecisiveness. Once again, what's old is now new again, at least in regard to annexation. Once again, history repeats itself. Loss of interest and follow through, failure to keep commitments made, is a habit that the Palmetto Bay government has slipped into since December 2018.

These inquiries/challenges were basically the same, but for the tone, the inquiries being of the nature of: Can you point to any other examples of failing to act after a definitive directive by Mayor Cunningham and Council? 

Challenged accepted!

The short answer is Yes, of course. Examples include the CANAL BANK EROSION issue. Another example of the failure to follow through. Promises made that have not been kept – far from it.

The current mayor and two councils passed not one, but two, nearly identical resolutions directing the Village Attorney to file a lawsuit against the South Florida Water Management District relating to canal bank erosion, trespass and the taking of village property though the erosion of the canals to the point where the easement had eroded and the canal was now running through village property.

So my questions, similar to the prior post relating to annexation, are as follows:

1. What/where was the follow through, where are the updated reports? (But this issue goes further as this is not an intellectual exercise it is one of a real, pressing need):
2. Why hasn’t the directed dispute resolution process been enacted on either of these resolutions?
3. Has the canal erosion ceased?
4. Have the damaged canal banks been restored?

And again, just like with the annexation process, Palmetto Bay Resolution 2020-80, enacted 9/14/2020, makes no reference to the first resolution (Reso 2019-82) enacted 15 months earlier. This council behavior is eerily similar to the annexation issue where this mayor acts like it is being considered for the first time, rather than owing up to the clear fact that nothing has been done in relation to the prior action.

The Delay Counter:

31 months (over 2 ½ years) have passed since Palmetto Bay Resolution 2019-82 (Enacted June 3, 2019)

17 months (nearly a year and a half) have passed since Palmetto Bay Resolution 2020-80 (Enacted September 14, 2020) 

The bottom line: Nothing. I repeat – NOTHING has happened to date, despite the two strongly worded resolutions were enacted promising and actually directing action by Council Charter Officers.

06/03/2019        Palmetto Bay Resolution 2019-82

A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, FLORIDA, REGARDING CANAL BANK EROSION, TRESPASS AND TAKINGS BY THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT; DIRECTING THE VILLAGE ATTORNEY TO FILE SUIT AGAINST THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR ALL CAUSES OF ACTION RELATING TO CANAL BANK EROSION, TRESPASS AND TAKING OF PROPERTY BY THE CANAL C-100C PASSING THROUGH CORAL REEF PARK; INITIATING DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 164.1052(1); AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

(Sponsored by Mayor Karyn Cunningham and Co-Sponsored by Councilmember(s) Patrick Fiore, David Singer, and Marsha Matson) (Vote 4-0: Mayor Cunningham: Yes; Vice Mayor DuBois: Absent; Councilmember Fiore: Yes; Councilmember Singer: Yes; Councilmember Matson: Yes)

09/14/2020        Palmetto Bay Resolution 2020-80

A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, FLORIDA, REGARDING THE INTRUSION OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT'S C-100A CANAL ONTO CORAL REEF PARK AND THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT'S REMOVAL OF TREES FROM CORAL REEF PARK, RESULTING IN A TRESPASS AND TAKING BY THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT; DIRECTING THE VILLAGE ATTORNEY TO FILE SUIT AGAINST THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR ALL CAUSES OF ACTION RELATING TO THE TRESPASS ON TO AND THE TAKING OF PROPERTY DUE TO THE CANAL ENCROACHMENT AND REMOVAL OF TREES; INITIATING DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES PURSUANT TO SECTION 164.1052(1), FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

(Sponsored by Mayor Karyn Cunningham) (Vote 5-0): Mayor Cunningham: Yes; Vice Mayor DuBois: Yes; Councilmember Fiore: Yes; Councilmember Singer: Yes; Councilmember Matson: Yes)

 The specifics:

RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE  OF PALMETTO BAY, FLORIDA, THAT:
Section 1.
(1) Lawsuit Against South Florida Water Management District.
              (a) The Village Attorney, in coordination with the Village Manager, is hereby authorized and directed to file suit against the South Florida Water Management District for the canal bank erosion of canal C- 100C, which illegally intrudes upon, trespasses upon, and takes property within Coral Reef Park not owned by the District.
              (b) The Village Attorney is authorized to include in such lawsuit any and all legal claims, whether or not otherwise identifies herein.
(2) Dispute Resolution Procedures.
              (a) In so far as Florida law requires participation in dispute resolution procedures prior to the filing of a lawsuit by a Florida governmental entity against another Florida governmental entity (e.g., Fla. Statute 164.1041 to 164.1065), the Village Attorney, in coordination with the Village Manager, is authorized and directed to engage in such dispute resolution procedures prior to filing the lawsuit otherwise authorized herein.
              (b) Consistent with Village Charter section 2.1, the Village Attorney, in coordination with the Village Manager, may invite the attendance of the Village Mayor at any dispute resolution meetings with the District.
(3) Official Initiation of Dispute Resolution by the Village Council in Accordance with Fla. Statute 164.1052(1). This Resolution shall be considered the initiation of the dispute resolution process by the Village Council pursuant to Fla Statute 164.1052(1). As provided by the statute, the Village Council hereby states as follows: “It is the intention of the governing body to initiate the conflict resolution procedures provided by this act prior to initiating court proceedings”.
***   ***   ***
(Remainder omitted by available through reading a copy of the complete resolution CLICK HERE)

RESULT - Bold promises made, but not kept (nor have the issues been resolved through any alternative means.