NE MAC meeting March 27 (recap)

Not many blog posts lately due to lack of activity "West of Aventura." 

There were developments in crime and safety, with robbers fleeing police helicopter chase after a home invasion in Oak Forest (s. of 203rd street and West of 24th Ave), and the arrest of a paroled thief who returned to the scene of his former crimes in Highland Oaks: back on the job breaking into unlocked cars.  So lots of development in crime and punishment, not so much on self-determination.

The MAC, which itself only has 2 years to consider the issue of incorporation, cancelled meeting in February because it was expecting ground-breaking progress from the County that would give the MAC direction on several key issues.  As discussed in the prior posts, that direction did not come.

So the MAC found itself, in a way, starting over again, with a discussion of procedure, the boundaries being considered, and its timeline for consideration: not very substantive issues given the age of the MAC.

Timeline: it was confirmed that the NE MAC first met (in its present form) held its first meeting in late February 2013.  The county code Section 20-29(E) provides that the MAC must complete its study within 24 months.  This means the MAC must "wrap it up" in 11 months.  The county representative was asked if incorporation could possibly be on the ballot in the November general election (when people actually vote).  He answered that since it takes the county government about 120 days to set an election, that the vote would likely be no sooner than mid-2015.  One of the most-asked questions about incorporation is "when is the vote", so there's your answer: 2015.

Boundaries:  The county staff were challenged on a statement they had made previously: that the boundaries being considered by the NE MAC could not be changed to exclude the [vocal anti-incorporation] condos in the SW part of the study area.  The challenge was twofold: (i) there is NOT a prohibition against an incorporation that creates an "enclave" (county representative Jorge Fernandez said the opposite at a meeting in 2013), and (ii) there may be no such "enclave" anyway, because the condos would be "attached" to the unincorporated area to the west of I-95.  There was some friction here: Jorge Fernandez didn't want to pursue a change to the boundaries, and some members of the MAC wouldn't be shrugged off so easily (again), so it was decided that the county attorney would be consulted for an opinion on the matter. 

County Meeting Update:  The county representative (Fernandez) glossed over the [disappointing] February 27 meeting of county commissioners, where the "tough" issues on both incorporation and annexation were basically deferred.  The county is going to hire a "consultant" to study the issue and make recommendations (again), and the consultant hasn't even been selected yet, so there is no help on the critical issue of mitigation (below), and likely won't be during the MAC's 2-year lifespan.

Budget Discussion:  Since the county gave no direction on Mitigation, there is a big issue facing the MAC.  Recall that "Mitigation" is the idea that if a "donor community" such as ours incorporates (forms a new city), the County would lose money on the deal, and nobody likes losing money.  So the county has a "poison pill" in the county laws that says 'if a donor community incorporates, we want to keep getting paid.'  See how that might be a little devastating to a new city that had hoped to "keep those tax dollars at work locally and not spent elsewhere in the county?"  Jorge Fernandez suggested that in other recent incorporations (in Miami Lakes, Doral and Palmetto Bay) the law had been enforced loosely, but that's not very comforting coming from a guy who was caught in a lie about the boundaries (see 2 paragraphs up). It was decided that the budget for the "new city" would have to account for mitigation payments to the county, until the county stops dragging its feet and addresses the issue (very unlikely to happen before the MAC wraps up in February 2015).

Mitigation is such a critical issue to incorporation that it deserves it's own post, coming up next.

Aventura Mall: Not Big Enough for Ya?

What impact will Aventura Mall growing in size to become the SECOND largest retail mall in the United States have on traffic and planning "West of Aventura"?

Summary from the February 21 issue of the Miami Herald:

• Mall will soon demolish its existing food court to build a new three-story wing of stores and a parking garage of up to seven levels tall.
• Turnberry Associates, got the go-ahead from the Aventura City Commission earlier this month, and expects to begin construction by the end of the year.
• 241,000 sf expansion will be constructed on the current food court site, near the JCPenney store. The parking garage could include as many as 1,400 spaces.
• The Aventura Mall already is Florida’s largest mall and one of the nation’s biggest, with 2.7 million square feet of floor space. That makes it the nation’s 16th largest, according to Mall Directory of America; by other measures, it comes in as the third largest. It also is one of the top five highest grossing malls in the country in terms of sales per square foot, according to Turnberry.
• the mall will create an enclosed transportation facility for buses on the ground floor of the new parking deck. “The bus stops are currently at five to six locations around the mall and are not that convenient to some people,” Aventura City Manager Eric Soroka said. “It is not an ideal situation as far as … mixing the pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic. This will allow all traffic from … buses to go into one consolidated place, which will be safer and … more convenient for people to use mass transit to get to the mall.”
• Aventura is currently reviewing a traffic impact study submitted by Turnberry, said Joanne Carr, Aventura’s community development director.

From Miami Today News

• three-story, 241,000-square-foot retail wing and a seven-level parking garage would be the mall’s second major expansion since 2008.
• Wikipedia ranks it third with 2.7 million square feet of retail space behind the Mall of America outside Minneapolis and the King of Prussia Mall outside Philadelphia.  The proposed addition would push Aventura Mall into the No. 2 spot above the King of Prussia Mall.
• Proposed retail wing would be between the JCPenney and Macy’s department stores
• The proposed garage would have about 1,400 parking spaces and feature a “transit facility” for buses, shuttle vans and taxis.
• If the final plan meets current zoning requirements for the site, it will only have to undergo an administrative review by city departments and their consultants. If a zoning variance is needed, it would need to be approved by a vote of a city board or boards, Ms. Carr said.
• The expansion plan was submitted to the city at about the same time the mall’s owners had its mortgage raised by $770 million to be refinanced at $1.2 billion.  The loan was sold to investors as part of a commercial mortgage-backed securities trust, the South Florida Business Journal reported, but the story did not mention the proposed expansion or whether the two are related.
• The mall was renovated in 2006 and expanded in 2008.  The 2008 expansion cost about $125 million and included construction of a two-story, 167,000-square-foot Nordstrom department store. The project also included a three-level retail wing and a three-story parking garage.  Prior to that, Aventura Mall was expanded and repositioned, doubling its size in 1997.
• According to Fitch Ratings, Aventura Mall’s tenants generated sales of about $1.4 billion in 2012. The firm said the mall draws about 28 million visits a year, making it the nation’s second-most visited mall behind the Mall of America.

February 27 BCC meeting PART 2: "Things to Come"

There was lots of meaty stuff left on the cutting room floor at the 2/27 meeting.  This post digs into the details of these items, which were deferred but not defeated.  In no particular order: 

Special Item #8
ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO ANNEXATIONS; CREATING SECTION 20-4.3 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROHIBITING THE FILING, CONSIDERATION, APPROVAL OF OR REFERENDUM ON ANNEXATION REQUESTS IF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED CONFLICT WITH THE BOUNDARIES OF ANY MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGARDLESS OF WHEN SUCH COMMITTEE WAS CREATED; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE APPLIES TO PENDING AND FUTURE ANNEXATION REQUESTS; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE 

It's not breaking news to say here what has already been posted on Nextdoor: if this item had been voted on last week, Annexation with Aventura would have become against the law - it's that simple.  The item was a huge surprise, was only known the day before the meeting, and would have left "West of Aventura" with only 2 choices (new city or status quo) instead of 3 (annexation being the third) if it had passed. 


Special item #11:
ORDINANCE RELATING TO INCORPORATION PROCEDURES; PROVIDING THAT A REQUEST OR PETITION FOR INCORPORATION SHALL NOT BE FILED NOR ANY FILED PETITION FOR INCORPORATION BE HEARD, CONSIDERED, OR APPROVED WHERE THE INCORPORATION REQUEST OR PETITION CREATES A NEW ENCLAVE; CREATING SECTION 20-21.2 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE 

In the supporting memo it is noted that the MDC Code 20-3.1 "precludes the Board from considering an annexation application that creates a new enclave" BUT "20-23(B)(1)(c) does not preclude the Board considering an incorporation that creates a new enclave."

This is very interesting, because in a 2013 meeting of the MAC, Secretary Rochelle Matza was told by Jorge Hernandez (Office of Management and Budget) that the condominiums in the SW part of the study area could not be excluded from the MAC study area, since doing so would create an enclave.  This resolution acknowledges this is not the case. 

Special item #7:
ORDINANCE RELATING TO INCORPORATION PROCEDURES FOR MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES; AMENDING SECTION 20-29 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; SPECIFYING CRITERIA FOR MEMBERSHIP, LOCATION AND STANDARDS FOR MEETING FACILITY, AND TIME FOR MEETINGS; PROVIDING APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE 

This one could be important "West of Aventura": it provides for amendments that would require MAC members "possess a variety of views on whether the study area should become incorporated" and "represent all geographical areas within the [MAC study area]."  WOW!  That would make the NE MAC look pretty bad, since it was initially stacked with "new city advocates" (in 2004/05), and even now in 2014 they all reside in the North end of the study area (no condos, no Ojus, no Presidential Estates even).  Section 2 of the background indicates that the ordinance would only apply to new MACs, but it WOULD apply to the filling of any vacancies on an existing MAC!  Keep an eye on this one. 

Special item #9:
ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO BOUNDARY CHANGE PROCEDURES; AMENDING SECTIONS 20-3 AND 20-4 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO PROVIDE THAT PETITIONS FOR BOUNDARY CHANGES SHALL REQUIRE CONSENT OF TWENTY PERCENT OF REGISTERED ELECTORS IN THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE 

Voters decided in November of 2012 to amend the MDC Home Rule Charter to provide that 20% of resident electors in an area could sign an incorporation petition to get a MAC process started.  Annexations by petition require 25%, and this proposal would change that number to the same 20% voters approved for incorporation. 

Special item #6:
ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE INCORPORATION OF NEW MUNICIPALITIES; AMENDING SECTION 20-26 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE, FLORIDA; DELETING THE REQUIREMENT THAT MUNICIPALITIES PAY FOR MIAMI- DADE COUNTY SPECIALIZED POLICE SERVICES FROM ITS MUNICIPAL MILLAGE OR OTHER MUNICIPAL FUNDS; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE 

Someone in our community living on NE 199th Street spoke against this one, and she was the only person to speak on it either way.  The ordinance would amend 20-26 of the Code, deleting the requirement that municipalities (including any "new city" West of Aventura), no longer pay for specialized police services which include narcotics ("Miami Vice"), homicide ("Dexter"), sexual crimes ("Law and Order: SVU"), crime scene investigations ("CSI Miami") - basically all the things they make TV shows out of.  The rationale for this is that MDC does not currently charge municipalities for such services.  The question is: as more and more areas incorporate or are annexed, will the budget for these important services shrink?, or will they just be funded differently?

Special Item #3:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING BOARD POLICY FAVORING ANNEXATIONS BY SMALL ECONOMICALLY CHALLENGED MUNICIPALITIES AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR OR THE MAYOR'S DESIGNEE TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES TO HELP ENSURE SUCH MUNICIPALITIES ARE ABLE TO ANNEX UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY 

This one acknowledges that lots of these "under 18,000 resident" villages in MDC are struggling, and that their only way to stabilize and improve their tax base is to annex surrounding lands.  It begs the question: if the annexing city is already challenged, who'd want to be annexed by them?

Special Item #4:
ORDINANCE RELATING TO ANNEXATION PROCEDURES; REQUIRING CONSENT FROM PROPERTY OWNERS IN AN AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED, IF THERE IS NO REQUIRED VOTE OF RESIDENT ELECTORS BECAUSE THERE ARE 250 OR FEWER RESIDENT ELECTORS IN THE AREA AND THE AREA IS FIFTY PERCENT OR LESS DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL; PROVIDING THAT SUCH REQUIREMENT IS APPLICABLE TO PENDING AND FUTURE ANNEXATION REQUESTS, UNLESS SUCH REQUESTS HAVE RECEIVED A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD ON OR BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE; AMENDING SECTION 20-9 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA (''CODE''); PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE   

The BCC can currently accomplish an annexation by ordinance (without a vote of resident electors) if there are under 250 resident electors in the area, and the area is less than 50% developed residential.  This change would provide that in those situations, at least 50% of the resident electors in the area consent to the annexation.  It's a pretty big change, and would prevent "serial killer" annexors (cities who avoid the need for a vote by just biting off pieces, <250 resident electors in size, one after another).



Expect to see all of these items discussed in 3 months when County Mayor Gimenez delivers his report ("Special Item 1" described in the last post) to the Commissioners, and the debate rages once again.

County Comission Meeting 2/27, PART 1: "No Direction"

At the January 30th meeting of the NE Municipal Advisory Committee (the "MAC"), much emphasis was placed on a February 27th meeting of the full Board of County Comissioners (the "BCC") to discuss issues related to Annexation and Incorporation.  The BCC meeting was so central to the MAC's discussions, in fact, that the MAC decided to have no meeting in February, to await guidance from the county.

Guidance on what?  
As discussed in earlier posts, our area is at a standstill because of the "poison pill" to incorporation (mitigation) which is a huge financial obstacle, and the "poison pills" to annexation (utility revenues, franchise revenues, and mitigation).  The expectation was that some direction would be given, which would (i) give Aventura the necessary tools to conduct a 2014 update to its feasibility study on annexation, and (ii) allowing the MAC to properly construct a budget for incorporation.

The meeting was promoted heavily enough to generate some coverage from the local rag (Miami Herald), who had completely ignored earlier meetings of the issues, and the hearings of the Annexation and Incorporation Task Force.
The story is viewable here.  And for you seriously die-hard followers, the entire 5-hour meeting was recorded, and viewable here.


The agenda was only made available the night before the meeting, and it really is worth a read.  You can find it here, and of the 11 special items on the agenda, none of them addressed the "poison pills", and only 4 of them were ultimately even voted on.


The most notable development was therefore the BCC kicking the ball back to the Mayor.  So here is a summary of all the recent events:

• April 1, 2013: Mayor drafts memo urging elimination of "poison pills"
• Summer, 2013: AITF meets and also recommends eliminating "poison pills"
• Fall, 2013: AITF discredited due to corrupt members (indicted Mayors)
• March 27, 2014: BCC asks Mayor for another report, due in 90 days.

There was a lot of frustration from the audience who came in numbers to protest specific actions related to their specific areas.  The "red shirt" brigade from "West of Aventura" was out in full force, and as you can see in the video link, many of them had their say on the evils being planned and committed.


So Mayor Gimenez will have under 3 months to report and recommend on several key items, including (i) whether additional unincorporated areas should be considered "areas of significance" that should remain in County hands; (ii) whether the area outside the "urban development boundary" should similarly remain in County hands; (iii) whether the BCC should further strengthen policies preferring annexation to incorporation; (iv) whether police and fire services should be considered regional in nature and remain at the county level when new cities are created and (v) whether existing County debt would be affected by additional annexations/incorporations.


The language promoting annexation over incorporation is interesting.  As noted in a prior post, there are 34 municipalities within MDC already.  As the Skylake HOA noted, 17 of those villages have a smaller population then the 18,000 "West of Aventura."   Just open a road atlas and you can see what a patchwork mess MDC has become: 34 tiny kingdoms, each with its own king or queen, and sheriff. Perhaps the BCC recognizes a need to promote sensible annexations over yet more hamlets, since the number could easily exceed 50 municipalities in MDC the way things are going.


So: the first resolution passed at the 2/27 meeting of the BCC was to have the Mayor prepare a report in 90 days.


The second resolution was to create an annexation/incorporation website, to be launched in 60 days.  No controversy there.  In fact, I thought it already existed at: http://www.miamidade.gov/managementandbudget/incorporation-annexation.asp


The 3rd item passed was 
"ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO BOUNDARY CHANGE AND INCORPORATION PROCEDURES; AMENDING SECTIONS 20-6 AND 20-22 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO DELETE REQUIREMENT FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION BY A COMMITTEE OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR PURPOSES OF MAKING A COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO THE FULL PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD ON PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS AND INCORPORATIONS; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE."

This basically eliminates a duplicative process, since the full Planning Advisory Board still reviews, but now does it as a full board, and not first by a committee.  

The remaining special items on the agenda, about 7 of them, were deferred (the hope being that the Mayor would address them in his report).  

The next post will discusses the items that were NOT voted on.  Spoiler alert: Annexation with Aventura is almost shot down in flames. 

"Your Taxes Will Go Up"

I hate those signs.  And with a vote not expected until 2015, we will all be looking at them for a very long time.*

[*2018 edit: it's years later, and those signs are still here!]  

Railing against taxes hasn't been as popular in America since tea was being thrown in the Boston harbor.  Taxes obviously pay for necessary services, but 100% of the people are never going to agree on the definition of "necessary."  Seniors, for example, may object to paying for schools if they don't have children (but will be sorry 10 years later when zombie skater punks crash through the front door).  And yuppies (is that still a thing?) might object to paying for libraries (also known as "the place where homeless people can use the internet").  And of course the tea party just wants to "drown government in a bathtub," but that's for another blog.

Today's discussion of taxes at the local level begins with the multi-colored "Real Estate Property Taxes" bill you receive every year in around October.  You must still have yours from last year, so go and get it (it's a blog... I can wait).  Then follow along.  C'mon. ... it'll be fun!

There are 5 sections of the bill:
Miami-Dade School Board appears in pink
State and Other appears in orange
Miami Dade County follows in blue [the focus of this post]
Municipal Governing Board is in green

Then there is a white box for "non-ad valorem assessments" where (if applicable) any special taxing districts, such as guard gate, roving patrol, other security, garbage service, etc. are reflected.

In Miami Dade County section, you will find these line items:
County Wide Operating
County Wide Debt Service
**Unincorporated Operating**  <-- focus!
Library District
Fire Rescue Operating
Fire Rescue Debt Service

In the geographical area under study by the Municipal Advisory Committee (the "MAC") - an area described and pictured in the first post entitled "Nomenclature" - the "Unincorporated Operating" millage rate is 1.9283.  This means that for every $1000 of assessed property value we pay $1.9283 (so a $100K assessment would result in being charged 100 x 1.9283, or $192.83).  All that other stuff isn't going to change - not even super-wealthy Aventura has its own Fire Department.

You can find a table of all the millage rates in Miami Dade County at: http://www.miamidade.gov/pa/library/2017-proposed-millage-chart.pdf. 

Rates range from a low of 1.7261 in Aventura to 9.7000 in Biscayne Park.  Also notable is North Miami Beach at 6.6036 (annexation by NMB is used as a "scare tactic" by the pro-incorporationists).  Our rate is the "Uninc. County" amount of 1.9283.

If "West of Aventura" became a new city (Village-At-Law, West Aventura, etc.), it would have a new millage rate, so the 1.9283 would change to "X".  The question is: will "X" equal the lower rate of 1.7261 Aventura pays (answer: no, we don't have the 3rd largest mall in the universe), or will it be closer to the 6.6036 paid in neighboring NMB.  The answer is "something in between."  Even Sunny Isles Beach (incorporated 1997) has a rate of 2.700, and they have more million-dollar condos than God (what do they do with all that money?).

The accounting gurus within a subcommittee of the MAC have cooked up a budget that results in a millage rate equal to the current 1.7261 rate, but as they say in securities prospectuses: "past performance is no guarantee of future results."

So let's make a worst-case scenario: let's assume the "new city" millage rate eventually matches NMB's rate of 6.6036.  How would our tax bills look in that event? 

Well, using a tax bill of a local celebrity (identity concealed) who has an "Unincorporated Operating" tax in 2013 of 274.63.  If the 1.7261 rate was increased in "new city" to the NMB rate of 6.6036, the "Unincorporated Operating" tax in 2013 would have been $940.50, which would be an increase of $665.87 - not chicken scratch by any means, but the net effect on the bottom line would be 19% - and this assumes a "worst case" millage rate equal to NMB (under the best case the increase would be 0%, so assume something in between).

Another example, taking another local celebrity, this time from the condominiums where all the "No to Incorporation" signs come from:

Remember in school when you learned that any number multiplied by "0" is "0".  Well, here is the practical application: No matter the millage rate, if you have a bunch of exemptions and a low-value property, you are not going to notice any difference at all.  So congrats, whiny condos: you get a shiny new city, more police, maybe even a bus service to the mall or bingo or whatever it is you do, and you don't owe uncle County one red cent next year, just like last year.  So stop printing all those damn "NO" signs that moan about taxes, and concentrate on the developers! 
 
Ok, one more celebrity: a more recent resident (like many people reading blogs), and from inside Highland Lakes (like most people who are attending meetings on incorporation).  As a more recent homebuyer, this taxpayer has a higher assessed value, because he/she/they didn't buy their home when it cost some multiple of the what the people who bought 30 years ago paid.

Whoooeee!  That's a tax bill that would make a person in the condominiums cry.  Total bill is $7,464, of which $656.21 is for "Unincorporated Operating" at the current millage of 1.7261.  So again, assuming a "worst case" rate of 6.6036, this taxpayer's rate in a new city would be $656/1.721 x 6.6036 = $2510, an increase of $1853, or about 25%!  See why the people on the "YES" to incorporation side use annexation by NMB as a scare-tactic?   

So the conclusion is: if there is a tax increase, it will be experienced disproportionally by (i) people who own homes in the NE, not condos in the SW, (ii) people who moved to the area recently, more than those who have lived here for decades, and (iii) people who want the very services they will have to pay for.  These are all generalizations of course, but I think they are fair ones, and to reiterate: these calculations are "worst case" and should not be anywhere CLOSE to the NMB milage rate.

I end the post with a math assignment.  Take the number from your last tax bill in the blue section called "Unincorporated Operating", then divide it by our current millage rate of 1.7261, then multiply it by whatever rate you think we will end up paying in the future (you can even choose your own rate from the table at the beginning of this post).  Then you can make an informed decision as to whether the benefits of incorporation are worth that extra price tag.  Let me know in the comments: (i) your assumptions (what the rate will be); (ii) how much more you end up paying, and (iii) whether you think the benefits exceed the cost, or vice versa.

Not interested in all the math?  Well, if we were annexed by Aventura, you could just put down your pencils because everything would be about the same.  

Unfortunately, as as will be explored in the next post, the County doesn't appear interested in having us pursue annexation discussions.  Analysis of the critical 2/27 county meeting on incorporation/annexation in the next TWO posts!

"Where do all these 'Vote NO on Incorproration' signs come from?"

It was a question that was asked on NextDoor  (like 'facebook' for neighborhoods), and it generated a lot of response.  The question led to the creation of this blog, because Nextdoor doesn't provide the best vehicle to post large quantities of information and graphics, and I think there is sufficient need for both to get a more complete picture of the issues.

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.

Annexation by Aventura would certainly not diminish our police resources - they seem to have so many police they don't know what to do with them (4 cruisers per traffic violation, cameras at every corner).  Seems we could use some.

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).

With so many attorneys in the "village-at-law", could corruption happen here?  Well, "never say never", but whether the corruption is downtown, or within walking distance, there's not much net difference. 

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.

Commercial Tax Base "West of Aventura"

As we saw in the first post, Aventura has an absolute "embarrassment of riches" when it comes to tax base, and it shows no signs of slowing down, with plans to expand Aventura Mall even further being considered.  

How about us, "West of Aventura"?  One of the big arguments against incorporating is that the largely residential community lacks enough commercial tax base infrastructure to make a new city Viable.  In this post, I investigate.

The Shops at Skylake are within our proposed boundaries:

284,204 sf: major tenants include Publix, LA Fitness and McDonald's

At a meeting of the NE MAC it was disclosed that North Miami Beach may be working to annex the Shops at Skylake into ITS boundaries, giving the MAC a reason to move quickly to a vote on incorporation.  In my interview with a Senior Executive at Equity One (owner of the Shops at Skylake), this rumor was denied: Equity One is not aware of any efforts by NMB to annex the mall [this blog is independent of rhetoric from BOTH sides of the debate; independant, and focused on uncovering and publishing facts].


So that's one significant commercial presence in the area.  Not much, but there is more to come, and its already starting to happen on the undeveloped area next to the Railroad tracks on West Dixie Highway.  Here is what the area looks like today:

[source: Tri-Rail Coastal Link Station Area Opportunities Report, April 2013].

And here is what that area could look like in the future:

Development in that area has already begun, with a sign up (and a flyer in my mailbox) for the Beacon Tower:

Note that it says "coming soon to Aventura".

The tower is slated for construction right next to the Ives Dairy overpass to US1, as illustrated in this picture [source: www.beacontoweraventura.com]:

I am excited to see the former trailer parks potentially converted to a usable** commuter rail station and mixed use development, but I'm concerned that this development (and all the development to come) is happening without any input from those of us living here, "West of Aventura".   

So while my interviews of "anti-incorporation" residents is focused on saving homes and condominiums from re-development, I feel like the decisions being made NOW are happening without ANY input, by people in downtown Miami who have little concern for our thoughts and community.  More analysis of the "NO to incorporation" perspective in my next post.

**note: the current mass-transportation infrastructure in Miami is shameful, with tri-rail operating away from homes, and cargo trains rumbling through our neighborhood of residences day and night.  The result is a city completely dependent on cars, with the resulting pollution and emissions.  So yes, I do welcome a commuter rail station where commuters can actually USE it, and which will hopefully operate at sensible hours and not at all hours, which is the case presently.  If designed properly, the station could also alleviate congestion from workers at the mall, on our "arterial" roads including Ives Dairy, but as I say: development should have our input!