Showing posts with label tool box. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tool box. Show all posts

Friday, March 20, 2020

March 19, 2020 update – Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos A. Gimenez, rendered Amendment No. 1 to Miami-Dade County Emergency Order 07-20

Amendment No. 1 to Miami-Dade County Emergency Order 07-20 was rendered by Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos A. Gimenez at 8:45 PM on Thursday, March 19, 2020 (CLICK HERE).

As explained by Miami-Dade County official sources:
Amended and restated to clarify language related to: new and used automobile dealerships; university, college, or technical college residence halls; private and municipal marinas and boat launches, docking, fueling, marine supply and other marina services; hotels, motels, other commercial lodging establishments and temporary vacation rentals; veterinarians and pet boarding facilities; and mortuaries, funeral homes, and cemeteries.
The balance of the Emergency Order 07-20 remains in full force and effect.

Other amendments may be made at later dates.  CLICK HERE to follow the Miami-Dade County coronavirus (COVID-19) page and get the latest updates from the source.

This information updates the previous post of March 19, 2020, Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos Gimenez has ordered the closing of all non-essential retail and commercial establishments. This order will be effective as of 9:00 PM, Thurs., March 19, 2020.

Photos below are of Black Point Marina - closed on Thursday, May 19, 2020 (photos taken at approximately 5:00 PM 3/19/2020):
 

Thursday, March 19, 2020

Facts - Official information: Florida's COVID-19 Data and Surveillance Dashboard

Florida Department of Health, Division of Disease Control and Health Protection has a website tracking the COVID-19 cases. The reports are updated twice a day at 11:00 AM and again at 6:00 PM.

Follow this link to: Florida's COVID-19 Data and Surveillance Dashboard

Click the following link to access the COVID-19 Resource Toolkit

As of the 6 PM update for Thursday, March 19, 2020, the confirmed cases are as follows:

Florida has confirmed 432 total cases (6 PM update for Thursday, March 19, 2020)
There have been 9 deaths
101 of the total cases are reported in Miami-Dade County.

Compare that with the Coronavirus cases reported
     (as of 8:00 AM, 3/19/2020):
328 cases in Florida with:
80 cases in Broward, and
77 reported to date in Miami-Dade.

Please use this as part of your tool box to separate fact from fiction and to stay up to date on what you should be doing to protect yourself, your family and your community.

Also available on this site:

Resources

Many resources are available to help international, national, state and local governments, corporations and communities, and health care professionals develop preparedness plans and strengthen response to different scenarios. See CDC Planning and Preparedness Resources.

Community Mitigation Guidelines to Prevent Pandemic Influenza

When a novel influenza A virus with pandemic potential emerges, nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are often the most readily available interventions to help slow transmission of the virus in communities. This is especially important before a pandemic vaccine becomes widely available. NPIs, also known as community mitigation measures, are actions that persons and communities can take to help slow the spread of respiratory virus infections, including seasonal and pandemic influenza viruses. See CDC Community Mitigation Guidelines.

Separating the medical from politics - we will not get through this together; we best get through this at least 6 feet apart. Opinion

What is Social Distancing? Statements such as “we will get through this together” are factually misleading and often nothing more than political pandering. In fact, we will best get through this pandemic APART – 6 feet apart  – through social distancing. This is no joke. This is a case of an ounce of prevention will save pounds, if not tons, of cure. Gatherings promote greater contact between people. 

We all have to pay attention and stay up to date and what precautions are needed. Act early to prevent action too late. Too many politicians have been in denial since the start of this health crisis; resisting calls to cancel or postpone events, community gatherings, including picnics, sporting events. 

Local governments put residents at risk by staying 2 -3 days behind the curve and acting only when following the dictates or lead of the County or State requirements. 2 -3 days late in taking action, or 'closing the barn door' is 2 -3 days that the horse (or in this case the virus) was given a pass or head start after it has left the barn. 

Coronavirus cases reported (as of 8:00 AM, 3/19/2020):
328 cases in Florida with 80 cases in Broward and 77 reported to date in Miami-Dade

Social distancing, if done properly - and by everyone, may be an issue of short term inconvenience in order to prevent long term adverse economic, social and health consequences.  Not done properly may result in more dire restrictions being placed upon our activities.

US surgeon general: ‘If we all pitch in for 15 days, we can flatten the curve’
Dr. Jerome Adams, the U.S. surgeon general, tells TODAY that people across the country – including his own children – are “taking the coronavirus seriously” now that they see it affecting people they know. He talks about the 15 Days to Slow the Spread initiative urging people to stay at home and avoid unnecessary travel, saying, “if we can get all America to pitch in for the next 15 days, we can flatten the curve.”March 18, 2020

Social distancing is not house arrest. Far from it. But it is certainly not business as usual. I have seen families sitting in the park within their small family groups (yes, they are in the same household – and it is not possible to keep a 6 foot distance from family members). I have seen many out biking or even taking out the boat. But social distancing is not gathering at St. Paddy Day events and having play dates at the tot lots (all of which should be closed – for the sake of the children and all who come into contact with them). A list of social distancing activities (samples) are listed below. Note this could be subject to change.

Here is an article published on Bloomberg that seems to provide a dire, worst case, impact. See: Prolonged Social Distancing Would Curb Virus, but at a High Cost, by Robert Langreth and Michelle Fay Cortez
March 17, 2020

The tool box – I continue to gather information and post here, but I recommend going to the CDC and news sources and not rely upon the politicization of this crisis.

Working together, we will get through this, while at least 6 feet away.

Wednesday, March 18, 2020

Helpful information - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) - this post (with links) Clean & Disinfect - protect your home

Important information - follow the link CLICK HERE for the full CDC site with important information.

From the CDC site:
Based on what is currently known about the novel coronavirus and similar coronaviruses that cause SARS and MERS, spread from person-to-person with these viruses happens most frequently among close contacts (within about 6 feet). This type of transmission occurs via respiratory droplets. On the other hand, transmission of novel coronavirus to persons from surfaces contaminated with the virus has not been documented. Transmission of coronavirus occurs much more commonly through respiratory droplets than through fomites. Current evidence suggests that novel coronavirus may remain viable for hours to days on surfaces made from a variety of materials. Cleaning of visibly dirty surfaces followed by disinfection is a best practice measure for prevention of COVID-19 and other viral respiratory illnesses in households and community settings.
Stay safe - prepare and protect.

Tuesday, March 17, 2020

How has your daily activity changed? Feel free to send me a photo update. Please maintain your social distance and be part of the solution, not the problem.

What are you doing to adjust to 'life during the Coronavirus"? I am working more often at home. I am thankful that this event waited until we were technologically enabled to telecommute. This international emergency would have an even greater, a much more dire, impact upon our local, national and international economies were we still chained to a physical communal work location. 
12:30 PM update. LOOKING FOR THE PHOTOS? They are starting to come in and are now being posted. CLICK HERE to view the photo submission page - How has your daily activity changed? Feel free to send me a photo update. Please maintain your social distance and be part of the solution, not the problem.
My thoughts are with those who are unable to work from home - the restaurant and hotel industries, Those who work in travel. Courts are closed, but for absolute necessity -such as initial criminal appearances and domestic violence cases. Many civil action cases are having events canceled or continued and some case events  are moving to telephone appearances.(that will be some back up to clear out when it is time). My annual dental check up was just rescheduled from next week until the end of May (as a place holder, they are hoping to reschedule for an earlier date if conditions change). That is a huge impact to those professionals, their staff and their vendors. 

The Coronavirus may create irreversible change to our economies. I may change forever how we work in the future. Some industries may be unable to recover or adapt to a post Coronavirus world. 

I was provided a photo early today by a FOSDU documenting what I call "gallows humor". That triggered a thought as to 'what is the impact on others"? So I am opening my blog as this may be a best way to community with so many who I cannot expect to run into out and about, at least for the foreseeable future. 


Here is the submission that triggered the thought, the catalyst for this community photo board:

Feel free to send me a photograph that you think documents the current change of life under this Corona-virus emergency. Remember, this is not a photo contest, but this is an offer for community contact and communication through photography.

The photos can be light-hearted or hard hitting.

DISCLAIMERS - 

  • I am not asking you to go out and expose yourself or others to any risk. This is purely an 'if you are out and see something' event. 
  • Do not violate anyone's privacy.
  • This is merely for fun, to provide some escape form any current doldrums and to provide some insight to those sheltering in place as to what some see while out. 
  • This is not a photo competition, there will be no prizes or consideration paid for use, nor will any photo credit be provided. I am accepting any submissions by photographers of ALL ages.\If you choose to include people in your submission, you are responsible for maintaining any privacy for the individuals depicted. I will not run any photograph that appears to be in violation, so please don’t bother submitting any such photos. 
  • No inappropriate photographs will be accepted, including images that appear to have put the photographer or subject at any risk of any type, involve the willful harassment of wildlife, damage to the environment by the photographer, put any individual or animal in danger, or infringe on the rights of any other photographer or person. 
  • Those submitting any photographs acknowledge that the owners of this blog have the final say to determine which photographs will be posted.

With that being said, photograph is a long accepted medium for communication or ideas and events. Let’s communicate the impact of this Coronavirus in our community.

The photographs may be emailed to me at eugeneflinn@aol.com I will post the photos (without comment, I will let the photos tell the stories in their own way) as I receive sufficient numbers to post and will post so long as I feel there is interest both in submission and readership.

Thank you!

Eugene Flinn

Don't forget the tool box on some other recent related posts:




March 15, 2020, Important read - CNN Health - Parents: Take social distancing seriously and limit playdates, other activities, experts say By Sandee LaMotte, CNN

Sunday, February 9, 2020

Property analysis - the tool box - trend of development report prepared by the firm of Calvin, Giordano & Associates

Information relevant to the Luxcom Bert J Harris Act claim (part of a series).

The Village of Palmetto Bay retained the firm of Calvin, Giordano & Associates (CGA) to review the development potential and determine a “Trend of Development” on approximately 69 acres of the overall 81.91-acre site which was the former site of the Cutler FPL power plant owned by FP&L.

This firm of (CGA) is part of a list of pre-approved qualified firms eligible to provided engineering and transportation planning services to Palmetto Bay (Palmetto Bay Resolution 2013-40, approved 5/6/2013, as well as resolution 2014-34, approved 4/7/2014). 

The goal of the Trend of Development analysis is to provide clarity regarding which uses predominate in order to create land use and development patterns on the site that are compatible with the surrounding area.

CLICK HERE to view the actual trend of development report (14 pages including site photos) 
This is a document which provides some historical background of this property - Interesting reading for those who, like me, enjoy reading historical background. See section 3 Site History, beginning page 3 (pages 3 & 4 of this 14 page document).

3. Site History
The site subject to the Trend of Development study was settled by William C. Cutler in the 1910’s and was used as a plantation estate for many years.

On September 15, 1947, the Dade County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), via Resolution 2615, approved a request for a special permit to develop the site as a power plant facility.

On February 27, 1951, the Dade County BOCC, via Resolution 4177, approved a request for a special permit to allow the installation of an additional 75,000 kilowatt generating unit.

On June 24, 1952, the Dade County BOCC, via Resolution 5099, approved a request for a special permit to allow a recreation and meeting room for employees and their families and headquarters meeting room and lounge for plant visitors.

On March 24, 1953, the Dade County BOCC, via Resolution 5779, approved a request for a special permit to allow the installation of an additional 75,000 kilowatt generating unit.

On December 29, 1953, the Dade County BOCC, via Resolution 6582, approved an expansion of the uses at the location.

On December 18, 1963, the Dade County BOCC, via Resolution 2-ZAB-683-63, approved a permit to allow the expansion of the existing plant by the addition of two 425,000 kilowatt generating units and all accessory equipment and facilities.

On July 12, 1994, the Dade County BOCC, via Resolution 5-ZAB-248-94, approved a request for a special use permit to allow the installation of a monopole cell tower.

In November 2012, the property ceased its power generation activities and the power generating plant was demolished by FP&L on August 10, 2013. The site now only serves as a substation for the distribution of power produced at FP&L’s Turkey Point Facility.

On May 6, 2014, the Miami-Dade County BOCC issued Resolution No. R-439-14 determining that the Cutler Ridge Electric Power Generating Plant site was no longer in use, nor would it be used in the future, for an electrical generating facility of county-wide significance. Through this determination, and via the above referenced resolution, the County relinquished its prior regulatory authority over the site to the Village of Palmetto Bay.

Without the power generating plant, FP&L no longer needs to retain all 82 acres of the site.
FP&L’s plat application, filed on November 13, 2014, sought to separate approximately 13.4 acres from the site which they intend to retain for the purpose of operating the existing power distribution substation.

Page 9 & 10 - 4.e Surrounding Uses

Different sections of the site are bound by:
a) residential development of varying styles and densities to the north, southeast and southwest;
b) the northern edge of the Deering Estate North Addition Preserve to the south;
c) school facilities to the west; and
d) water channels connecting to the Cutler Channel and Biscayne Bay.

The surrounding residential uses include:
• To the north, King’s Bay Subdivision, an established 68-acre gated subdivision located within the boundaries of the City of Coral Gables. This subdivision contains 150 dwelling units (du’s) at an average density of 2.5 du/acre.This neighborhood was annexed into the City of Coral Gables in 2003. Single-loaded homes lining the southern edge of the subdivision back onto the FP&L site.
• To the southwest, Royal Palm Estates, a subdivision of approximately 22 lots within the Village of Palmetto Bay, that is surrounded on three sides by the properties that constitute the Miami Dade County-owned Deering Estate. Some of the estates are large, but the average density in this subdivision is approximately 2.5 du/acre.
• To the southeast, Paradise Point, a gated subdivision within the Village of Palmetto Bay, consisting of 12 single family homes, approximately 100 townhouses, and amenities including a marina. The average density in this neighborhood is 9 du/acre.

BLOG EDITOR'S NOTE: NO CONCLUSION - YET.  No conclusion is provided here as there is not one to make at the present time. This information is being provided due to the fact that Palmetto Bay is not putting out this important information. Everyone should read the entirety of information provided to understand this issue. To better understand this information is to be better prepared to defend the Village Council's actions in court. 

The Village's position will be much more difficult to defend if it is cast as a political decision in response to political pressure rather than a decision based upon a deliberate process that properly take all past, present and future concerns into account, relying upon these professional tools.

The defensible data is out there. It is up to the Village Council to provide responsible and competent leadership, allowing staff and village council to do its job without political interference. 

Friday, February 7, 2020

Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program (FRDAP) - FY2020-2021 Recommended Priority List

Which municipalities submitted for funding and made the list? The Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program (FRDAP) considered all applicants, determining that 134 projects were worthy for funding. The projects are ranked from #1 to #134.  The 2020-21 list includes #18 Key Biscayne, #23 Homestead, #27 Cutler Bay, #40 Miami Beach, #56 Virginia Gardens, #57 Bay Harbor Islands, #68 Sweetwater, #87 South Miami, and #92 North Bay Village. 

A fair question: Did Palmetto Bay even submit for FRDAP funding this cycle? Palmetto Bay was very successful in the past - FRDAP monies have been used in all of our parks. It is foolish and fiscally irresponsible to ignore $50,000 to $200,000 per year. Palmetto Bay does have an in-house, full time grant writer. 

(CLICK HERE) to view the FRDAP ranking list for FY 2020-21. I have posted the local Miami-Dade Municipalities who submitted funding requests and had their proposals make the ranking list (1-134) chose as eligible to receive funding, subject, of course, to the funding provided to FRDAP by the Florida Legislature and approved by the Governor.

Listed below are local projects (Miami-Dade County) that I identified that are contending for funding. The number to the immediate left of the municipality name is the ranking of the application, followed by name of municipality, description of project, and funding amount proposed. 

Note that not all projects may receive funding.  Projects are funded in order of rank.

18 Key Biscayne               530 Crandon Phase I                                       $ 200,000
23 Homestead                  Mayor Roscoe Warren Municipal Park         $ 125,000
27 Cutler Bay                    Franjo Park Restoration Project                      $ 200,000
40 Miami Beach              Fairway Park                                                      $ 200,000
56 Virginia Gardens       Athletic Complex Phase III                               $   50,000
57 Bay Harbor Islands    Tot Lot Park                                                       $   50,000
68 Sweetwater                  Linear Park Improvements                              $   50,000
87 South Miami               S Miami Park Playground & Fitness 
                                                     Outdoor Equipment Project                     $   50,000
92 North Bay Village      NBay Village Canoe/Kayak 
                                                     Launch Project                                           $  50,000

$12,342,750.00 Total amount of funding sought by FRDAP (guaranteeing all projected listed above receive full funding). 

This is an update (and part of what can be considered your Florida Legislature 2020 "tool box") of the RELATED POST of February 6, 2020, Palmetto Bay legislative appropriations requests - Appropriations Project Request - Fiscal Year 2020-21

FRDAP is one of the legislative goals of the Current Palmetto Bay Mayor and Council (see prior post), for the 2020 legislative session, specifically:

Palmetto Bay Resolution no. 2019-121 included:
Note: A. - E. Omitted
F. Seeking funding assistance for the Village’s FRDAP and other such FDEP projects to address park capital improvements and park property acquisitions.
Coming soon - additional updates and fair questions.

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

LUXCOM and the Bert J Harris claim against Palmetto Bay: Is the planning letter of November 30, 2018, a "$21 million dollar letter"?

Is this a $21 million dollar letter? Luxcom appears to believe so.

I have posted this link (CLICK HERE) to the complete 6 page November 30, 2018, land use letter prepared by the Village of Palmetto Bay for attorneys for Luxcom.  

This letter begins:
Thank you for your interest in working with the Village of Palmetto Bay to determine development possibilities for the land that is described by Folio 33-5024-000-0020 that was previously the site of the Florida Power & Light Cutler Plant.
This is a six page letter that requires deliberate reading. No one phrase or paragraph is determinative on its own.

This post is part of an ongoing series of posts related to LUXCOM's Bert J Harris claim, see PRIOR RELEVANT POSTS (the 'toolbox'):

January 13, 2020, blog post: involving Breaking News – 2:29 PM, Monday, January 13, 2020 - LUXCOM voluntarily dismisses the DOAH administrative action; gives notice of BERT J HARRIS claim potentially seeking over $21 million. Details including link to relevant documents.  As indicated, there are links provided to relevant documents that will allow those interested to do a deep dive into this matter.

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.

Friday, 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.

Be thankful that Bert J Harris claims don’t arise every day. But this also means that the law is one that is still developing, so there is some uncertainty, so less predictability, as to how these serious claims for (alleged) deprivation of property rights may play out. 

I offer up some perspective to answer questions I have been asked on this matter. I am publishing this response here for public viewing as well as to assist our first time Palmetto Bay “Interim” Village Manager who has no experience in these types of matters as well as Palmetto Bay’s recently hired in-house Village Attorney (I am unaware as to his level of expertise on this specific litigation). I am trying to be helpful. The main point is Palmetto Bay needs to manage this litigation correctly as this could be the first of a few Bert J Harris claims, unfortunately, rather than a unique claim. Palmetto Bay must avoid setting bad law precedent for future litigation.

This article is in follow up to the Monday, January 13, 2020, blog post: involving Breaking News – 2:29 PM, Monday, January 13, 2020 - LUXCOM voluntarily dismisses the DOAH administrative action; gives notice of BERT J HARRIS claim potentially seeking over $21 million. Details including link to relevant documents.  As indicated, there are links provided to relevant documents that will allow those interested to do a deep dive into this matter.

Before a lawsuit is filed for a Harris Act claim, certain prerequisites are required under the statute. The Bert J Harris claim must be submitted not less than 150 days prior to filing a lawsuit under the act (Completed by LUXCOM on 1/13/2020). This claim must include a bona fide valid appraisal in support of the claim. (Completed by LUXCOM on 1/13/2020). Both the claim letter and appraisal were delivered to Palmetto Bay.

Palmetto Bay is now on the clock, and is required to either make a written settlement offer or state that Palmetto Bay will take no action within 150 days. (Deadline date:  Thursday, June 11, 2020)

If no settlement is reached during the 150-day notice period, Palmetto Bay must then issue a written statement of allowable uses identifying the allowable uses.

LUXCOM has to follow this procedure, or Palmetto Bay will be entitled to a dismissal of the Bert J. Harris Act claim.

Remedies – the $21,760,000.00 question.

Cash or rezoning – much is a matter of timing and how Palmetto Bay responds. 

LUXCOM appears to be alleging $21,760,000.00 in damages under Bert J Harris. The important allegation is contained in the Appraisal (Page two of appraisal, overall page eight of 63) that the Bert J Harris damages are projected at $21,760,000.00. The appraisers arrive at that number by setting their appraised value for the property as of July 29, 2019 at $34,000,000.00 based upon the value as an institutional use. The same appraisers then set a value for this same property predicated upon the re-zoning for the Estate Density Residential as of July 30, 2019: $12,240,000.00.  This results in the opinion of the appraisers for the "Bert J. Harris" claim as of July 30, 2019, or: $21,760,000.00.

Obviously Palmetto Bay will seek its own appraisal. However, it will be bound by the appraiser’s report.  Perhaps the appraiser will opine that there is no difference in value between the value of institutional use for example on July 29, 2019, as when the property was rezoned (as of July 30, 2019). Obviously, any different in value by Palmetto Bay appraisers (if requested) will set a minimum (floor) for potential damages, just as LUXCOM is bound by a maximum claim (ceiling or high water mark) of $21,760,000.00.

Another aspect of the act is encouragement for the parties to resolve claims by using alternative remedies (sounds a lot like the 12/12/2019 dispute resolution event, that did not go well for Palmetto Bay – see: January 7, 2020, South Dade Updates Guest Blog- view of the 12/12/2019Palmetto Bay / Miami-Dade County conflict resolution proceeding (let’s hope the Village has learned from this 12/12/2019 debacle and will be better prepared for this round involving a potential $21,700,000.00 plus Bert J. Harris claim – we are talking serious money here, not stop signs)

Palmetto Bay, if it acts timely, can avoid monetary damages, but, [and again, during a limited period (unless extended)] Palmetto Bay must make a written settlement offer that can include adjustment of land development; increase in density, intensity, or use; transfer of developmental rights (TDRs); land swaps or exchanges; mitigation, including payments in lieu of onsite mitigation; location on the least sensitive portion of the property; conditioning the amount of development or use permitted; etc. This takes a willingness to actually take a stand and make an offer. Obviously none of this would occur if Palmetto Bay officials opine that the Village (and its taxpayers) are at no risk from a Bert J Harris Act claim.

Big Issues with remedies

Once a lawsuit is filed, the court is limited to remedy monetary damages only. This may pit Palmetto Bay's appraisal (if one is obtained) v. LUXCOM’s appraisal of  $21,760,000.00.

Special circumstances may allow for the parties to revisit the monetary and work out a zoning option, but both sides need to be willing and sufficiently savvy to do so.

The “Toolbox” (resource materials):

The actual ACT online (CLICK HERE or title line below):

RELIEF FROM BURDENS ON REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
70.001   Private property rights protection.
70.002  Property Owner Bill of Rights.
70.20 Balancing of interests.
70.45 Governmental exactions.
70.51  Land use and environmental dispute resolution.
70.80 Construction of ss. 70.001, 70.45, and 70.51.
70.001 Private property rights protection.—
(1) This act may be cited as the “Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act.” The Legislature recognizes that some laws, regulations, and ordinances of the state and political entities in the state, as applied, may inordinately burden, restrict, or limit private property rights without amounting to a taking under the State Constitution or the United States Constitution. The Legislature determines that there is an important state interest in protecting the interests of private property owners from such inordinate burdens. Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature that, as a separate and distinct cause of action from the law of takings, the Legislature herein provides for relief, or payment of compensation, when a new law, rule, regulation, or ordinance of the state or a political entity in the state, as applied, unfairly affects real property.
BLOG EDITOR'S DISCLAIMER: I will update with more information in additional future posts. This information is put out to provide some idea of the alleged basis for the LUXCOM claim under BERT J HARRIS ACT. How the claim actually proceeds, if at all is dependent in large part upon how the claim is pursued by LUXCOM as well as defended by the Village of Palmetto Bay.

Friday, November 8, 2019

Time is past due for a Public Meeting to engage and update residents regarding the SW 136th Street Project

Transparency and public involvement matters to those Elected Officials who want their fellow residents to trust their government. Residents should be able to expect transparency from their elected officials.

The time is long past due for our elected officials to update and involve our fellow Palmetto Bay residents on the Howard Drive "bike lane" project.  As background, please review  a PRIOR RELATED POST of January 25, 2017: Update on the 136 improvement meeting held at Howard Drive Elementary & Temporary Traffic Tables coming to Farmers Road during County Pilot Program. Significant information was provided then and an update is long overdue, especially as the wheels appear to have come off the tracks for this project.  Transparency counts.

People who feared loss of trees for a simple bike lane will now face a much greater impact from a 10 foot 'multi-use path' (a/k/a a MEGA sidewalk) in front of their homes (OK, I understand that the MEGA sidewalk may be reduced a 'mere' 8 feet in some sections). Regardless, there will be much less room to park without violating the ADA by parking on a sidewalk. There will be significantly less room for trees. 

I am waiting to see how this MEGA sidewalk impacts the 136th Street student drop off in front of Howard Drive Elementary.  We need answers.

What happened to this project?  Other important questions include: 
  • Did any of our village council members work to change out the agreed to bike lanes to a 10 foot MEGA path placed solely on the Palmetto Bay side? And, if so, why wasn't the public updated. 
  • Or were they caught unaware? 
  • Why weren't our residents consulted in advance of this major change, did our representatives not know, or do their voices not matter? 
  • Is the MEGA path a 'done deal' or can our residents still have input? 
  • Which residents were provided inside knowledge and if so, why were other concerned residents neither not invited to meetings or at least provided a timely update?
And still, the current Palmetto Bay Mayor and other officials still remain unaware, or unwilling, to update the facts of the project as the Village Website continues to incorrectly mislead the readers that the "136th St. Improvement Project remains as follows:
136th St. Improvement Project
This project is currently under design. Improvements include minor widening of the roadway to add bike lanes on both sides of the road and milling & resurfacing the existing roadway. We are looking to replace the existing 5’ sidewalk on the South side of SW 136TH Street (Village of Palmetto Bay Side) with a new 7’ wide sidewalk. Other improvements will include pavement markings, ADA Compliant pedestrian ramps, and landscape improvements. This is a LAP Project between Miami Dade County and FDOT, and Village of Pinecrest and Village of Palmetto Bay are also stakeholders.
(this is how the web notice reads as of 3:00 PM, Friday, Nov. 8, 2019)
CLICK HERE if you want to see if the website has been altered as a result of this blog post.
Screen shot taken 2:35 PM, 11-8-2019
Do you want to see what a 10 foot MEGA Multi-Path looks like? Please see a PRIOR RELATED POST of January 13, 2019, Taking a close look. A ten foot multi-use path proposed for around Palmetto Bay by a member of the Village Council - here is how it might look. Actual photos of a similar, if not identical design. Offering some Pros & Cons
Will this be the new look for the Palmetto Bay side of Howard Drive?

 Other PRIOR RELATED POSTS of interest - part of your tool box of information relating to this process:

October 30, 2019, Pinecrest Wins, Palmetto Bay loses. Pinecrest Council discusses material changes to 136 St Bike Lane. Palmetto Bay may be home to a 10 foot MEGA sidewalk instead of a shared project.

EDITOR'S NOTE - There was no update on this project was provided (at least to the public) at the Palmetto Bay regular village council meeting of November 4, 2019. Why not?

October 29, 2019, Foreshadowing - for now, please review the Palmetto Bay Path conceptual Plan proposed by Marsha Matson, Palmetto Bay Councilmember, District 3, March 18, 2019.

I will place any updates here when the long-overdue public input session is set and noticed. This blog has a way to nudge Palmetto Bay into action.

Eugene Flinn

Monday, June 24, 2019

US Supreme Court provides a Federal right to contest local government action affecting property rights. Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania - From the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BLOG (SCOTUSblog)

Most failed to notice a Supreme Court decision published Friday, June 21, 2019: Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U.S. _____ (2019).* The US Supreme Court expressly overruled the legal precedent of Williamson Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), extending Federal Civil Rights, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, to land use actions by local governments. 

WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT: Federal court litigation and rights under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 may provide much greater property rights to aggrieved land owners than the State remedies. My thanks to Palmetto Bay Council Member David Singer who does his research and stays abreast of developing issues and the law. Preparation is invaluable.

RELATED PRIOR POST: I invite readers to review my prior post of March 31, 2019, Update on DUV revisions. Reviewing attorneys' opinions and considering in light of transparency in the Village. Do these detailed legal opinions require updates in light of the Knick v. Township of Scott, US Supreme Court decision?

The "Ku Klux Klan Act": Section 1983 was enacted on April 20, 1871 as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. It is also known as the "Ku Klux Klan Act" as one of its primary purposes was to provide a civil remedy in Federal Court against the abuses that were being committed in the southern states, especially by the Ku Klux Klan. This action provides a Federal remedy to provide protection, the only remedy in some local areas, where laws may have existed to protect citizens in theory, but protection in practice was non-existent to some because those persons charged with the enforcement of the laws were unable or unwilling to do so. Section 1983 was intended to provide a private remedy for such violations of Federal law.

In land-use cases, the federal statute 42 U.S.C. § 1983 protects property owners against municipal actions that violate a property owner's constitutional rights, including actions that violate a property owner's rights to due process, equal protection of laws and just compensation for the taking of property under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Impact to bringing claims in Federal Court: Prior to last Friday (June 21, 2019), aggrieved property owners were expected to litigate state claims, such as inverse compensation claims, before they could take their federal property rights claims to federal courts.  The US Supreme Court rendered a 5-4 decision on Friday, June 21, 2019, that overturned this existing precedent and it will have major impact on property right litigation filed by property owners against local governments for ordinances that impact their property.  

It appears that under the Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U.S. _____ (2019) decision, government regulation can be considered a "taking" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment overruling a prior decision, the president set by a prior US Supreme Court in Williamson Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985)

Please note that the immediate information posted below is taken verbatim from the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BLOG (SCOTUSblog):

Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania

Docket No.Op. BelowArgumentOpinionVoteAuthorTerm
17-6473d Cir.Jan 16, 2019
Tr.Aud.
Jun 21, 20195-4RobertsOT 2018
Holding: A government violates the takings clause when it takes property without compensation, and a property owner may bring a Fifth Amendment claim under 42 U. S. C. §1983 at that time; the state-litigation requirement of Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, is overruled.
JudgmentVacated and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 21, 2019. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor joined.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
________________________________________
OTHER NEWS SOURCES/INTERPRETING THE KNICK DECISION

National Public Radio (NPR) and its report of this decision and potential impact: NPR - LAW - Supreme Court Overturns Precedent In Property Rights Case — A Sign Of Things To Come?, by Nina Totenberg, June 22, 2019:

As reported:
A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that property owners can go directly to federal court with claims that state and local regulations effectively deprive landowners of the use of their property.
The 5-4 decision overturned decades of precedent that barred property owners from going to federal court until their claims had been denied in state court.
Federal courts are often viewed as friendlier than state courts for such property claims. The decision, with all five of the court's conservatives in the majority, may have particular effects in cities and coastal areas that have strict regulations for development.
Property owners and developers often have complained that zoning rules and other state and local regulations effectively take their property for public benefit, and that the Constitution requires that they be paid just compensation.
          CLICK HERE to read the full NPR article

More to come on what, if any, impact this will have upon Palmetto Bay & Cutler Bay pending land use issues.

GOVERNMENT TAKING OF A PROPERTY RIGHT:
What is a taking? That can be an issue decided on a case by case basis, but let’s look at the simple facts of this case, now known as Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U.S. _____ (2019). The property owner, Rose Knick, was contesting a local ordinance that forced her to allow public access to her private farmland due to the fact that her 90 acre outlying property has a family graveyard – a family, not a commercial public graveyard.

OFFENDING ORDINANCE:
The Ordinance itself is simple. The Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, passed an ordinance requiring that 
“[a]ll cemeteries . . . be kept open and accessible to the general public during daylight hours.” 
The Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, passed an ordinance requiring that “[a]ll cemeteries . . . be kept open and accessible to the general public during daylight hours.” Rose Mary Knick, the property owner of a 90-acre rural property with a small family graveyard, was notified that she was violating the ordinance. Ms. Knick sought declaratory and injunctive relief in state court on the ground that the ordinance effected a taking of her property, but she did not bring an inverse condemnation action under state law seeking compensation. 

ORDINANCE WITHDRAWN – NO PENDING ENFORCEMENT – NOT MOOT:
What I find interesting is the fact that the Township responded by withdrawing the violation notice and staying enforcement of the ordinance. Without an ongoing enforcement action, the lower court held that Ms. Knick could not demonstrate the irreparable harm necessary for equitable relief, so it declined to rule on her request. 

FEDERAL COURT ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS – THE “1983” ACTION:
Ms. Knick also filed an action in Federal District Court under 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging that the ordinance violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 

US SUPREME COURT DECISION:
Decided on Friday, June 21, 2019, reported as Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U.S. _____ (2019) No. 17–647. Argued October 3, 2018—Reargued January 16, 2019 CLICK HERE to view the official published opinion.
_________________________________
* As listed in the Opinion Syllabus; ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. KAGAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined.