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).
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).
