[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.
