State-Owned Roads "WoA"

The following is a map provided by Neil Lyn, District Statistics Administrator with District 6 of the Florida DOT (quite a mouthful)

The image shows (in red) those roads which are owned by the State of Florida.  Notable for our area is the STATE's ownership of Miami Gardens Drive and US1.

Note also that Ives Dairy Road is NOT State-owned.  Like all roads in unincorporated Miami-Dade, Ives Dairy is currently owned by the County.  Why is this important?  Because the MAC discussions with the county most recently included a "conceptual agreement" which outlines a framework under which "we" can proceed with incorporation.  That agreement provides that Ives Dairy Road would remain owned by the County, even if a new city was approved by voters.

Is it a good idea to surrender Ives Dairy road to the County?  Answering this would depend on your views on the wisdom of incorporating generally, but among those interested in forming a new city, Ives Dairy Road is very often cited as a central reason for doing so, specifically:

• Aesthetics: 203rd is the "ambassador" of our community, it's face representing the face of the new city, and right now that face looks like a hockey player's - missing lots of teeth and pretty banged up.
• Crime/Safety: The road is congested, dangerous to school-children crossing at 24th Avenue and ripe for revenues to the new city derived from a red-light camera.
• Quality of Life: a congested road means noise and air-pollution, brake dust, and a longer commute to work for local residents.

In other words, whether you are 'pro' or 'no' to incorporation, this road is pretty important to your life "WoA".  Surrendering control the county may relieve the "new city" of some expenses (to maintain the road, fix potholes, etc.), but it also abandons control over the single most important artery of our community, and could potentially cost the new city millions of dollars in revenues which it will desperately need to sustain itself.

WestofAventura contacted the County public works department and was sent (by Horacio Gonzalez) a list of all County-owned roads within municipalities.  I expected a list of about 20 pages, but it was only 3!  Here is the one page that covers roads in surrounding cities (Aventura, NMB and Miami Gardens):

On the above list, under "North Miami Beach" you will find West Dixie Highway up to 175th Street, so extending county control of WDH into the new city may have some logic.

But note that the county does not own ANY of the roads in Aventura, including their portion of Ives Dairy Road!  So why should Miami-Dade County own and control that same street in "our" new city?  Aventura had the financial resources and foresight to be a little smarter in its negotiations with the County, and our MAC should be following their example!

Aventura Red Light Cameras and the Supreme Court

This one will be of interest to those of us who frequently drive in the boundaries of our neighbor to the east.  As reported on NPR and in the Miami Herald, The Florida Supreme Court found last week that Aventura (and other cities) "overstepped their authority" in implementing red-light camera programs prior to 2010.

That doesn't mean you should drive immediately over to Aventura and start making right-hand turns onto Biscayne when the light is red (even when there are no cars?  really?), because after July 1, 2010, a STATE law went into effect which made red-light camera violations (including those occurring in Aventura) a state traffic violation. 

From the Miami Herald story:

The ruling from the Florida Supreme Court was a victory for critics who have long insisted the cities created their own illegal sham hearings, circumventing state law, in a blatant grab for cash from motorists...

Thursday’s ruling also comes just months after efforts in the Florida Legislature to repeal the use of red-light cameras fizzled.  Red-light cameras have been a divisive issue since cities began installing cameras at intersections, then mailing violations to surprised drivers. Supporters insisted that the program was designed to enhance safety on the roads.

Between 2008 and July 2010, red-light camera violations were not state traffic tickets but city “code violations.” In Aventura, motorists contesting violations had to go to hearings at City Hall — which they claimed were biased and unfair.  A slew of lawsuits followed, and in February 2010, a Miami-Dade judge ruled that Aventura’s enforcement system circumvented state traffic laws. Aventura created the first red-light program in Miami-Dade.  But a Miami appeals court overturned the judge’s decision, saying the program was indeed lawful.  The Florida Supreme Court took up the issue because of conflicting decisions by appeals courts: in Orlando, judges ruled that the city’s program did indeed circumvent state law.

In response to the uproar about the programs, the Florida Legislature passed a new law that made red-light camera infractions a state violation. The statute went into effect July 1, 2010, and violations are now heard in front of traffic court magistrates."

So there you have it: another happy ending where lawyers made millions, and some unhappy motorists may be getting a check in the mail.

What effect does the ruling have on one of the hot-button local issues West of Aventura: installing cameras at the intersections on Ives Dairy Road?  None: any camera deployed (to protect school-going children) would be covered by State law, and challenges to infractions would be heard in a proper traffic court.

There is the possibility that the State legislature could outlaw the cameras altogether, something which was actually considered in the most recent legislative session, but which went nowhere.

 

Up next: coverage of the June 19 MAC meeting.