Aventura Mall is in a low-income community?!?!

Not much to write about lately: either I'm busy with real work, or just less cranky.  
Aww, you KNOW I'm no less cranky!

But even busy, I had to post about the latest outrage to come to my attention.

It started with a story in today's NYT titled 

Wall Street, Seeking Big Tax Breaks, Sets Sights on Distressed Main Streets

and you can find the story at this link: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/business/taxes-hedge-funds-investors-opportunity-funds.html?emc=edit_th_190221&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=585994050221

Sounds great, right?  I also found a map where you can search out these "eligible low-income rural and urban communities" so that you too can invest like a billionaire.  The map tool is at this link.

So what's the problem?  Why me so cranky?  Here's why:


See the red circle?  Look familiar?  It's AVENTURA FREAKING MALL.  The 3rd largest retail mall in the "United States of A" and home of top-tier retail stores of every stripe, apparently is nestled within a "low-income rural and urban community"?  Distressed?!

So how on earth did one of the countries most affluent and profitable shopping destinations find itself in an Opportunity Zone?  According to the Times story "Local officials selected the zones from a group of areas deemed eligible for the designation under a federal formula that factors in income and poverty levels."

Sounds to me like cause for further study into "local officials."

Your favorite neighborhood agitator (and blogger) gets some Oxygen in the October "Biscayne Times."  Read the full story here.

My 12-year journey to becoming a 'yes' to Incorporation

[This is a sneak preview of an essay I'll be posting on Nextdoor.com shortly].

Mail-in ballots will arrive in 12 days (October 9), and the 2 sides of this argument are quickly running out of time to make their case.  A moderated debate would have been optimal, but nobody from the “No” side stepped up to meet the challenge, because they’re poised to win by pushing to ‘get out the vote’ (mail-in ballots) before the ‘yes’ side can get out the facts.  Here is my impartial decade-long perspective.

By 2013 I’d already attended several meetings of the group formed to study incorporation (the “NE MAC”), and I was concerned about the composition of the group: largely people from Highland Lakes, many clearly pro-incorporation.  I was leery of ’groupthink,’ so in April 2013 I asked Commissioner Heyman to appoint someone I knew who opposed incorporation (Rochelle Matza), and I was surprised to be appointed along with her.

On the NE MAC, I was a vocal critic of many aspects of incorporation, and I started this blog to document many of these concerns, to post materials and educate the public.  For example: I was very concerned with the County’s requirement that it retain control over several key roads in the new city (most notably Ives Dairy Road).  These concerns and many, many others have been exhaustively described there for over 5 years.

I also began a one-person MAC outreach tour: since the leadership of the ‘no’ movement were unwilling to serve on the MAC (yes, they WERE invited), I went to the condos to hear the concerns and answer questions directly.  I also communicated directly with neighborhood and condo association presidents, and established new Nextdoor online communities.  Even without a city or local government, our area is much more organized and connected in 2018 because of the incorporation issue.

While neighbors argued over incorporation, developers took advantage: Gables Aventura (https://westofaventura.blogspot.com/2014/05/gables-aventura-project-revealed.html); Brighline train service (https://westofaventura.blogspot.com/2014/04/trains.html), commercial high rises constructed along West Dixie (https://westofaventura.blogspot.com/2014/02/commercial-tax-base-west-of-aventura.html).  The ‘no’ side say they oppose development, but without a city to act collectively and with organization, development was snowballing regardless.

When my car was stolen from my driveway in March 2016, my interest in policing exploded.  An incorporated city could keep its police inside its boundaries, dramatically increasing our police coverage (going from maybe 1 patrol car to over 6 at a time would seriously reduce crime).  Even IF taxes went up, the benefits would far outweigh the costs: crime is expensive, home and car insurance is made expensive BY crime, and traffic enforcement is priceless when it’s stopping a speeding car from hitting your child on their way to school.  Your household costs (not just "taxes") could go DOWN.  Your property values could go UP.

I also became very involved with special taxing districts (guard gate and roving patrol services that cost those residents thousands each year).  I found tens of thousands of dollars of unexplained overhead in County budgets, and thousands more billed for maintenance of landscaping that didn’t exist.  This experience taught me that a new city’s management of these districts would very likely result in taxes going DOWN, not up!

I don’t know what motivates the ‘no’ side in this debate.  The main organizers (Brian and Alicia Rook) own 5 homes in North Miami Beach, and only 1 in the proposed boundaries.  Some homes with ‘no’ signs have weeds growing knee-high, or 8 cars parked on the lawn, which explains THEIR motivations (hint: code enforcement, which to the rest of us should NOT be a ‘dirty word’!).  After over 5 years reading Rook’s flyers, I know that the ‘no’ team is disingenuous and deceptive: incorporation does NOT add a level of cost - it localizes it; a budget line item for mayor does NOT mean the mayor is paid a 6-figure salary; we do NOT need to build a “city hall” given the tons of empty space available over the Publix at Skylake Mall.  Most importantly, incorporation puts us financially ahead of where we are today, because even with mitigation payments, we would keep much more tax revenues as a City than we do today - money that can fund OUR priorities without the need for taxes to go up.

The ‘yes’ side’s statements aren’t 100% infallible (there are always uncertainties you can’t plan for), but unlike the Rooks, the ‘yes’ organizers have a decades-long proven record of service to the community - its safety, security and appearance.  I don’t agree with them on every issue, but incorporation is a far, FAR better option than the status quo. 

For years I’ve championed annexation by Aventura [and you can read a ton about that on this blog], but it’s been futile, mainly because Aventura loses certain revenues from an area it annexes.  But those same revenues are retained after an incorporation, so voting ‘yes’ would allow for future negotiations from a position of strength, not one of weakness, while a vote of ‘no’ would cripple us (and make parts of our area potential targets of unfriendly annexation).  So for the majority who voted for Annexation in my Nextdoor polls in 2015 (https://nextdoor.com/news_feed/?post=10377877), keep that in mind.

Incorporating won’t solve all our problems, but ONLY a City can address the problems discussed here on Nextdoor every day: the never-ending car break-ins, unchecked re-development, making our streets and crosswalks safer, policing our schools, keeping tax dollars in our community to support OUR infrastructure and OUR priorities, guard gate oversight, raccoon and iguana infestation, etc.  Incorporation can begin to solve a lot of them, and I would work hard with a local government to do it, as I have with the County.

Oh, and if ‘no’ wins, other unincorporated areas won’t stop leaving the county to form their own cities, and our taxes WILL go up!  You won’t read THAT on the lawn signs.

How the "New City" Question will appear on the November 6, 2018 Ballot

Here it is:

New Municipality in Northeast Miami-Dade

Shall the Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners be authorized to create a new municipality in the area of northeast Miami-Dade with the following outermost boundaries?

Northern boundary: County line
Eastern boundary: City limits of Aventura (Biscayne Blvd.)
Southern boundary: City limits of North Miami Beach
Western boundary: Interstate 95

Yes

No

Commentary (oh, you knew there'd be some):

The northern, western and southern boundaries all make sense, but the critical Eastern boundary - why?

The NE MAC negotiated a "Conceptual Agreement" with the County, where the Eastern boundary was defined as "Dixie Highway/Biscayne Boulevard".  I was part of the NE MAC when this agreement was being negotiated, but not when it was finalized.  Prior to it being finalized, I had asked that the boundary be defined as "City limits of Aventura" (like the southern boundary made reference to the city limits of NMB).  You can find a copy of the conceptual agreement here (at Exhibit 5), and see my advice was not heeded.

The actual resolution passed by the NE MAC also defined the Eastern boundary in the 2nd WHEREAS clause as "Dixie Highway/Biscayne Boulevard" [you can find this resolution as Exhibit 4 in the link above]

In September 26, 2017 in a memo from Jorge Fernandez to the Planning Advisory Board (who met that same day to decide on whether to adopt the NE MAC's recommendation and put the issue of a new city to a vote by residents), Fernandez corrected the Eastern boundary as "the City of Aventura to the east" (because what I'd said months earlier had finally been understood: the prior language lacked specificity, and Biscayne Blvd. really isn't the boundary at ANY point - you can see this plain as day in the graphic from my VERY FIRST WoA post, which you can find here).

On June 5, 2018, the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners ("BCC") considered Resolution R-576-18 (which you can find about 3/4 through the document here).  The very TITLE of the resolution describes the eastern boundary as "THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF AVENTURA TO THE EAST" (and repeats the same language in the second 'whereas' clause of the resolution).  Section 3 of this resolution then goes into extremely detailed 'metes and bounds' (a legal term) description of the proposed new city boundaries.

So why did the ballot question muddy the issue that took so long to resolve, by throwing in the words "(Biscayne Blvd.)" after the sufficiently clear "City limits of Aventura"?  Especially when there is no point on the proposed eastern boundary that even TOUCHES Biscayne Blvd (see: https://www.miamidade.gov/incorporationandannexation/library/maps/northeast-dade.pdf).

I don't know the answer, but because the ballot language above is the exact language passed by the BCC (see page 9 of the resolution), voters will have to live with it.

Oh: and in case you were wondering, the western boundary of Aventura (and therefore the eastern boundary of the 'new city') is actually the FEC railroad tracks (that's not 100% accurate for the entire boundary, but it's a more useful 'rule of thumb' than Biscayne Blvd., which is just completely inaccurate).

Naming a New City: Factors to Consider

A recent study evaluated correlations between neighborhood name and things like home value and household income.  You can read the full report here.

In prior posts, I speculated that property values would increase if the area were annexed by Aventura, and decrease if the area were annexed by North Miami Beach, because of the premium/stigma (collectively, the "baggage") associated with those names.

Annexation options have evaporated since those posts, and this year the focus is exclusively on incorporation of a new city, an issue which appears on the November general election ballot.

If it passes (which is nowhere near certain), the decision to create a new city would create an opportunity to devise a city name that might increase (or at least not diminish) home values.

One interesting note from the Porch.com study: the household income numbers already correlate to several of our neighborhood names:


Oak Forest contains the #4 "Oaks" and #9 "Forest"
Highland Lakes contains the #6 "Highland"
Sorry Sky Lake and Enchanted Lake.

The more important list is "Highest Home Values" (bottom part of the graphic).  In the top 10, only "Highland Gardens" has a word that makes the list ("Gardens," coming in at #10).

So in response to the oft-asked question "what should we call the new city?", I would propose:
"Island Beach Harbor Hills Village"
;)

This blog always refers to the potential new city as "West Aventura," but a compromise incorporating elements from the names of existing communities "Highland Gardens" and "Oak Forest" could be simply "Highland Oaks," which could explain how the area's original schools came to be named, decades ago ("Virginia A. Boone Highland Oaks Elementary" and "Highland Oaks Middle" respectively).

Special Taxing Districts (if you live in a gated community "West of Aventura" - read)

This is an edited letter I sent to the NE MAC security leads - people who, like me, volunteer to serve as a liason between the community and the County department that manages the guard houses, which you see on your tax bill each year (the preliminary one just went out this weekend).  

As you'd imagine, there is a lot of 'behind the scenes' with these districts, and sometimes a district has no idea what is going on when their rate goes up by hundreds of dollars.  Residents just shrug and pay their tax bill.  But huge increases in recent years got a lot of people in our area very interested, and thankfully we now have a system with much more oversight and accountability.  

One product of this oversight was the switch by many districts (first Highland Lakes/Gardens, then Coventry, and now Oak Forest and Enchanted) to a new provider (Kent Security) that offered significant savings and cameras at the guard gates: more for less (see last blog post for more on this).  But even with that kind of 'victory,' no community can afford to rest on its laurels.

So here is a peek 'behind the curtain' about issues discussed among security leads for the guard gates and the area's single roving patrol (where I am the lead):

* * *

"When I didn't receive a 'proposed notice of rate' from Sue Torano [our contact within the County] this year for my district (Oak Forest Roving), I found out [the lead in Highland Lakes/Gardens] got his in May, so I wrote to get rates, and then budgets.  Subsequently, I just got my property tax bill in the mailbox, and was a little astounded to see the roving patrol (who had huge coverage holes this year) was basically the same cost as last year (only $30 less).  So I reviewed tons of material and had 1.5hr talk with Sue.  Here's the summary, which applies to ALL security Special Taxing Districts ("STDs"):

"1. Torano hasn't historically emailed leads if there is NO fee increase.  Highland Lakes had a small increase, so [their lead] was emailed.  Oak Forest/Enchanted had a decrease, so no email.  But because it is always important to be informed, I asked, and Sue agreed, to send emails every year REGARDLESS of direction of upcoming fees.  In Oak Forest's case, we really needed to see the notice, because the amount of the decrease for roving was not at all what we'd been told to expect (more on that below).

"2. The financials she sent for Oak Forest/Enchanted gates showed only a slight decrease (hence, no email).  I expected a larger one due to the transition to Kent for those 2 districts (saving $41K), but because the transition was 5/12/18, it was too late to budget for - the 2019 budgets actually contemplate the higher USSA rates (approx $402K), not Kent (approx $361)!

"3. I asked 'if the budget assumed USSA, not Kent, then why did the rate go down at all - shouldn't it have gone UP?'  The confusing answer, was that big carry-forwards were the main reason (more on that below).

"4. RESERVES.  Oak Forest gate for some reason has a whopping $84,100 contingency reserve - about 17% of budget, even though the goal is supposed to be 10%!  Crazy!  I said that for 2020, that needs to be brought back down to 10%, especially since the switch to Kent from USSA is going to save about $40,000, ON TOP OF that huge reserve.  So Oak's Gate should see a big drop next year.  If Oak Forest ever contemplated automating one of it's 2 gates (which would presumably involve some capital costs), this might be a good time to consider that, as the surplus would absorb a lot of the cost (and thereafter Oak Forest could be saving $200,000/year in guard costs).

"5. Sue [Torano] agreed to reach out to us in the SPRING next year to discuss budgets, so we can be more proactive, not RE-active.  I'm upset about the roving patrol rate not going down a ton (see #8 below), and I could have had that conversation MONTHS ago and saved the roving people like myself some grief (and money!).

"6. On Enchanted Lake, I compared the financials with Oak Forest going back several years.  I noted my amazement that Enchanted had paid $5300-7100 for 'landscaping' up until 2017, when that number went to ZERO.  For 2018 it is again ZERO, because Enchanted HAS NO LANDSCAPING!  So basically Enchanted Lake, for years, was getting f***ed, because people were 'pretending' to mow lawns, and supervisors were 'pretending' to verify the work, when there was never any work TO do.  Astounding.  Read your budgets!

"7. Signs: yeah, they were expensive.  Budgeted at $5000/pair and came in closer to $4000 EACH.  Very upsetting.  Won't need to be done again any time soon I hope, and yet if we incorporate, would we want those signs to have a city name on them?  Ugh.  Very depressing.  

"8. Oak Roving: FHP missed a whole month after the hurricane, and turned in 50% time sheets other months, so how on earth did the rate only drop $30 on my 2019 tax notice?  Where is the money?  Well the answer is (i) the contingency reserve for that district needs to be even lower than the 10% for the gates - maybe 5%; (ii) the money is still 'in the district'; didn't go elsewhere (which I have trouble believing); and (iii) the projections for 2018 are WAY off.  She calculated them on the spot and we are looking at tens of thousands less than the already-reduced budget.  Since they used wrong assumptions for this year, they projected wrong assumptions also!  Not only that: the budget for 2019 indicated $1195/household, but for some insane reason the number they submitted to the county to approve was $1329!  This is exactly why I wish I'd received a notice of the price (even if it's a decrease), so I could have gone to the meeting and screamed it down.  I told Sue that when it comes to this particular district, OPTICS MATTER - we all expected a decrease, we aren't getting one, we need to see one next year.  A big one.

"9. Oak Roving switch to MDPD: MDPD was really interested, got Sally Heyman to amend the ordinance, then found themselves in a position where they can't even figure out a way to move forward: the county can't contract with itself (Torano says), and MDPD would need someone from the county 'sign off' at the start of each shift, which is impossible.  So anyone with interest in this option: basically forget it (it was more expensive anyway).

"10. Coventry: Sue responded to a lot of my complaints by saying that Coventry also experienced some concerns about it's budget (which I don't have to be able to comment on), and I'm copying [Coventry Lead] to see if he has other thoughts to share on what sounds like a similar experience.

"11. Fixed costs may be going up: After a recent vote (2016?), STDs located within a CITY are able to transfer control from the County (like us), to their city (which we can't do, being unincorporated).  Sue said many districts are taken advantage of this, and spreading the same costs across fewer districts means we could see increases even if nothing else changes.  That sucks.  This may be one reason to incorporate a new city and manage our own districts to reduce costs (a single 2-gate district has a 4-year average of about $35K in County Overhead baked-in, so between our 6 districts... that's a job I'd apply for).

"Conclusion: Rates didn't drop enough this year, possibly to build a 'cushion' for future fixed-cost increases (as more districts defect to city-management), but we should start reviewing earlier in the cycle next spring to ensure rates drop as they should (and reserves will be set at more reasonable levels) at least in the short-term.  The 'landscaping' charges in Enchanted alone justify active review, and share experience like in this email.  When I'm notified in the Spring of discussions, I'll make sure other leads are in the loop."

How A Simple Request can save a Neighborhood $40,000 per year

Subtitle: Complacency is Costly!

We all live in "special taxing district," but some of us live in more of them than others.  You can tell how many you live in by looking at your property tax bill or notice - the "Non-Ad Valorem Assessments" category lists them, such as "Lighting District," "Solid Waste," and "Guard Gate."  Another clue is if you drive past/through a guard gate on your way home every day.

Even though the "Lighting District" comes to only $67.66 on my tax bill - not a huge deal - one local resident did some digging and found out that he was paying for lights that didn't exist in his community.  This anecdote is evidence of inefficiencies in the system generally, which in the aggregate could represent enormous inequities.  I'm not an expert in street lighting districts, but I have become one with respect to the Guard Districts (guard-gates and/or roving patrol).

Many of the guardhouse districts were created in the 1990s, possibly due to a wave of crime at that time (in my own neighborhood, there are stories of regular armed robberies that precipitated closing off streets and limiting access to 2 roads with guard gates).

At that time, a company called 50 State managed to secure the lion's share of the guard gate contracts, despite the fact that they were not the lowest bidder, raising the prospect of some sort of corruption.  If there was some kind of bribe, it was worth it, because the sweet deal for 50 State endured for decades: once a special taxing district was formed, communities were rarely organized well enough to provide much (if any) oversight of those districts: residents just accepted the fact that there was a line on their tax bill for services they agreed to by simply living in the community.

In 2016 many of the guard gates experienced a huge spike on the tax bill.  This resulted from the diligence of a small gated community called Biscayne Point.  The new HOA President of that district started doing some digging, raised his findings with the then-Chief of Special Taxing Districts (Don Tock), and uncovered massive accounting deficiencies.  Biscayne Point had believed it was running a respectable surplus, but uncovered a large DEFICIT that resulted in a 'catch-up' payment that appeared not only in Biscayne Point, but on the bills of residents in ALL gated communities, including West of Aventura ("WoA") communities like Highland Lakes, Highland Gardens, Oak Forest, Enchanted Lake and Coventry.  It was a very unwelcome surprise.

The tax hikes were sufficiently alarming to shake some areas out of their long slumber, and demand more accountability.  The STD division was reorganized (and is now part of the Parks Department), a new Chief was appointed (Mike Bauman), and the flow of information from the County to communities began in earnest.

One of the most interesting pieces of information I received was a 'master budget' showing a long list of gated communities and the rates each pays for the same services:

In the graphic, the 5 "WoA" guard districts are highlighted.

This image is actually of 2018 rates, not the 2016-17 ones I first requested, but these financial tables led to an amazing discovery: until recently, all WoA Communities were receiving services under a 1994 Contract with 50 State, which was acquired by US Security Associates ("USSA") a few years ago.  That company was charging the County (who then charged applicable residents) $201,163 per gate for services (batch at the top of the graphic).  The exact same services were available from Kent Security for $184,981 per gate (batch at the bottom of the graphic), so for a 2-gate community, the difference was over $41,000 per YEAR!

"APPLES TO APPLES"
Skeptical readers may guess that USSA provides superior services or better guards that are worth the premium.  NOPE!  The situation here is exceedingly rare in that it is truly 'apples to apples' because when a community switches from one provider to another, the same guards can be hired by the new provider, making the transition largely undetectable (except for the badge on the guard's uniform).  Even the pay the guard receives stays the same, because becoming approved by the County involves assenting to cost of living and wage requirements that are the same.

One of the first communities to catch on to all this was Highland Lakes/Highland Gardens, where their county liaison Marc Hurwitz was (and is) also President of the larger area HOA.  Hurwitz organized those 2 gated communities sufficiently to formally request a provider change to Kent.  In addition to the $40,000++ cost savings, satisfaction levels actually went UP!  This may be due to the fact that Kent is based locally, whereas USSA is based in Marietta Georgia, and run more for profit than for quality control and customer service.

... AND MORE: CAMERAS
Kent was also able to overcome a challenge that had existed for years: getting CAMERAS installed at the gates to reinforce the work of the guard, provide a tool for police investigating area crimes, and simply to serve as a visible deterrent to crime.  In several other districts (Biscayne Bay, Gables by the Sea), frustrated residents simply installed cameras themselves, but one district (Sans Souci) discovered a disastrous downside to doing this: when a resident requested footage that was not deliverEd, the HOA found itself party to a lawsuit that went on for years and cost thousands to defend.

Another Gate district - Keystone Point - went a different direction: they set up a entirely new and separate taxing district in order to get the cameras through the County!  This "solution" ended up being such a costly and inefficient nightmare, that the County now actively discourages replicating this model.

By taking ownership of the CCTV/Camera issue, Kent both avoids the inefficiencies of the County, and at the same time protects residents and HOAs from the liability and risk (and maintenance and upkeep) associated with having control.

THE BALANCE IS SHIFTING
This is just speculation, but I think 50 State sensed there was trouble brewing around it's decades-long grip on the special taxing districts, and it chose to bail out by selling to USSA, rather than see its model begin to implode starting in 2016.  By 2017, Highland Lakes and Highland Gardens had both moved in the above graphic from the "USSA" batch of contracts at the top of the image, to the "Kent Security Services" batch of contracts at the bottom of the image (all WoA communities are highlighted in the table so you can find them easily).

And even the 2018 graphic is out of date, because in December 2017, Coventry (G-103) joined Highland Lakes/Highland Gardens in transitioning to Kent.  With close to 30 homes in Coventry, residents there will save over $600 per year for the exact same services (same gate, same guards) as they had with USSA.

Now Oak Forest and Enchanted Lake have also formed security committees to better oversee services and communicate with residents, and also to request transition to Kent to save about $250/year per residence (enough to buy a Ring doorbell after 1 year, or a private CCTV after 2 years, both of which would vastly improve personal security).  Those savings are not one-time; they accrue year after year after year, and all just for knowing enough to ASK the county for a provider change.

The moral of the story: get organized, ask questions and be an informed consumer, and you can break dynastic contracts with unmotivated providers and improve things not just for yourself, but for your community.