This post explores the reasons NOT to incorporate, gathered from meetings of the MAC, AITF, on Nextdoor, and in conversations with "anti-incorporationists."
The forces of "NO" fall into 2 camps:
- people who are concerned with property tax increases. These people are mainly homeowners, who have tax bills each year of several thousand dollars; and
- people concerned with (in a word): "LIFESTYLE". They don't want the area south of Skylake (south end of study area, with the condos) to become another mega-mall, casino or racetrack, and they believe this is a serious possibility if the area is no longer unincorporated. This camp consists mainly of residents of the condominiums on the SW end of the study area here (the Moorings, Jade Winds, etc.)
The "2 camps of NO" were outlined by Stanley Jacobs, an octogenarian with thick-rimmed glasses and a baseball hat, who comes across as a bit of a fanatic at the public meetings when he rants about "eminent domain" (the public taking of private lands, for fair value, for public use). It is true that there was a legal case in New London, Connecticut where a city abused this power, but that was an exceptional case, and the fear of eminent domain seemed to me like a sideshow every time Jacobs raised it. But I think his issues aren't really with "eminent domain" at all, because his concern isn't with property being taken for public use, but rather for private use (developers taking low-value condos and converting them into something new they can profit from).
So there is a major misconception the "YES" camp doesn't appreciate: the "NO" organizers aren't really concerned with increased taxes at all - nor should they be, since most of the condos pay very little in taxes (if any), and would see very little impact even if millage rates increased. They are concerned with survival, and I think the "NO" forces would be more effective if they abandoned the fear-mongering (taxation) and focused on their real concerns.
That's
not to say taxes couldn't possibly go up. In fact, it's entirely
possible, but if you live in a condominium with an assessed value of
$50,000, a homestead exemption of $25,000 and an seniors' exemption of
$25,000, it's just a fact that taxes are not an issue worth printing signs
over. This will be discussed in a future post: "The Real Impact of Incorporation on
Taxes."
There are some other arguments made by the "NO" group, but none of them are as core as the "lifestyle and taxes" pillars of the movement. These secondary arguments are:
1. "the police are very responsive already"
Since the bulk of the "NO" forces reside along the southern boundary, their response times may well be better than the homeowners on the northern end experience. The fact is that there has been a rash of thefts in the study area, with one highly visible house having the tires stolen off a car in the driveway twice in a week! The northern border with Broward county has proved porous, with criminals easily evading county jurisdiction with a hop of the fence.
At a meeting of the NE MAC (the group investigating viability of incorporation), Captain Mirtha Ramos (Miami-Dade Police Dept) explained that the study area (18,043 residents) is part of the larger Intracoastal Police District (105,980 residents - all the way down to 163rd street), and that a crime committed elsewhere in the Intracoastal district can result in all of our police being pulled away, leaving us completely unpoliced. This is why seeing a black-and-white in our area is so rare.
Incorporation would also not diminish our coverage. Instead of having 5 or 6 "floating" officers, we would have 5 or 6 "dedicated" officers, who could not leave the new city if there was an emergency elsewhere. So even with the "minimum" staffing required by MDPD, the net result would be more officers patrolling our area regularly.
2. "I don't want more corrupt politicians"
There are around 34 cities housed within Miami Dade county [source ], each with a mayor. Of those 34 mayors, THREE were charged with criminal acts this past August. As outlined in this article in the September 1, 2013 New York Times:
- Manuel L. Maroño, 41, the mayor of Sweetwater and president of the Florida League of Cities, and Michael A. Pizzi, 51, the Miami Lakes mayor, were picked by the FBI, accused by the United States attorney’s office of involvement in kickback and bribery schemes concerning federal grants (August 6, 2013).
- Steven C. Bateman, 58, the mayor of Homestead, was arrested, accused of accepting under-the-table payments from a health care company that sought to build a clinic in town, according to the attorney’s office for Miami-Dade County (August 28, 2013).
3. "Incorporation Creates an Extra Layer of Government" This will be an issue for the Municipal Advisory Committee (MAC) to determine. Of course there IS an "extra layer," (you can't have a city without another layer), but the real question is: are we paying for it, or are we just taking money that pays for government downtown and spending it locally?
If the "extra layer" is merely having government closer to the governed, then I think the result would be in line with the view of US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who famously wrote "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants" - where better to see and critique our government than to have it within walking distance.
The core issue of taxation will get further analysis in a future post.
