Look. I don't know what Max Rameau did before Umoja Village became his cause, but it's enough for me that an African American emerged who is willing to stand up for principles, never mind what the status quo says.
There are two models for leadership: in one case, a powerful elite selects and promises to support someone for political office who, in return, is faithful to what they want. He or she doesn't have to be well-spoken, just able to follow a script. In the second case, a leader emerges from a cause that energizes voters: it could be good government, it could be a specific neighborhood issue. In this case, he or she must be resourceful and willing to stand up to the status quo.
Although Max Rameau has not run for public office, so far as I know, he is an example of the second model and one worthy of note in the African American community that has surrendered, over a very long period of time, to its bit-player role in the Miami-Dade political elite. (Arthur Teele is another story, in and of himself.)
Anyhow, here's some praise for Max Rameau and an acknowledgement of the important role of grass roots groups in the African American community: you do have the power, the causes, and the capacity to change political equations in Miami and Miami-Dade county.
I would reprint the full text of Max Rameau's OPED, but the Herald's website opinion page / special contributors is notoriously difficult to navigate and find. Maybe a reader can add it to the comments section...
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Related Group: Resorting to Slapp Suits? By Geniusofdespair
It has been reported this week that the Vizcayans and Commissioner Mark Sarnoff are facing legal battles with the Related Group. Oh, no! Two lawsuits have been filed because of - yes again - those three Mercy Hospital Towers! Damn that Catholic church. According to the Miami Herald: "Vizcayans member John Hinson called the lawsuit the latest ''bit of skulduggery'' aimed at squelching his group's opposition."Do these suits constitute Slapp Suits? You be the judge. What is a Slapp Suit you might ask? Every single one of you should know what a Slapp Suit is because you might be facing one at some time in your life. And you will go broke. According to the not always reliable Wikpedia, this happens to be a good explanation:
"A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") is a form of litigation filed by a large organization or in some cases an individual plaintiff, to intimidate and silence a less powerful critic by so severely burdening them with the cost of a legal defense that they abandon their criticism. The acronym was coined in the 1980s by University of Denver professors Penelope Canan and George W. Pring. One marker of a SLAPP suit is whether the costs outweigh the claimed damages by a large amount: for example, damages of a few hundred dollars and costs in the tens of thousands. Lawyers are thought to be particularly conflicted in SLAPP suits, since a marginal case can lead to high legal fees, and lawyers are encouraged to run up costs by their clients."
Now return to my Sunday July 22nd post and re-read that Related Group Letter: "What is Related Group Up To?" Now we know.
Big Stupid Manatees. by Geniusofdespair
According to a star reporter of the St. Pete Times, Craig Pittman: Manatees may lose protection, protectors:"The state agency set to remove manatees from the endangered list plans to slash 90 positions from the division that enforces the boating speed zones designed to protect manatees."
and:
Despite the agency's patrols, 86 manatees were killed by boats in 2006, the second highest number since the agency began keeping statistics in the 1970s. As of July 31, boats had killed 48 manatees this year.
The idea that the state agency would cut its patrols while dropping manatees from the endangered list is "pathetic," said Helen Spivey, state co-chair of the Save the Manatee Club.
Thanks Rodney Barreto, and the rest of you Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commissioners, for nothing. You know that manatee's aren't like dolphins, that they don't know enough to dive when they hear a motor. You know they just swim near the surface as if they owned the water. They get squished between ships and seawalls. They need protection because we all know, they are a trusting creature that doesn't know how to get out of the way of harm.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Manipulating the African American community block vote, by gimleteye
The Miami Herald reports on the "piling on" by African American leaders against the recommendation to expand the number of seats on the county commission, to include a number of at-large representatives.
It makes my heart sink to understand that all the talk about "setting back the clock" is meant to rile up minorities who vote virtually in a block. It is race baiting.
It is exactly what occurred during the strong mayor referendum, when mailers were anonymously sent out warning of dire consequences to poor blacks by shady, backroom dealing if a strong mayor was elected. It wasn't true then and it is not true, now.
The fact is that the shady backroom dealing is what African American county and city commissioners have been doing to their own, for decades, on the order of "what happens in Overtown, stays in Overtown." This penny-ante stuff (a pitiful fraction of what rainmakers in the power elite provide for their own) enforces a rigid political orthodoxy in African American communities.
There have been serial examples how poor African Americans have gotten pasted by their leaders SINCE the strong mayor referendum earlier this year: Poinciana Biotech Park, wrapping up the Meeks, the un-"affordable housing" ordinance from Barbara Jordan wrapping the housing boom in South Dade to family interests, the county housing agency and JESCA fraud, wrapping up Dorin Rolle, the Umoja Village and Scott Carver Housing, wrapping up Spence Jones, and last but not least, the vote on the multi-million dollar Related project in Coconut Grove, wrapping up Barbara Carey Shuler and Spence Jones.
Here is the lesson that eyeonmiami has repeatedly emphasized (read our archive on corruption, for more if you have the stomach for it):
The current single-member district system of Florida's largest county is anchored by campaign contributions of the development lobby, represented by such interests as the Latin Builders Association and lobbyists like Miguel de Grandy, guaranteeing a dysfunctional system of government in which an African American political elite trades the perks of incumbency for votes to zone and permit new development in outlying areas or (in the case of the Related project) where few black constituents live.
It is predictable as rain. Now the question is, of course, would anything change with the addition of at-large member seats?
It depends on whether candidates for the new seats could afford to run county-wide races on a good government platform, such as the one that elected Marc Sarnoff in the City of Miami to replace the growth-at-all-costs mentality that put so many condos in downtown Miami it will take decades and tax hikes to absorb them all.
If county-wide elected commissioners who ran on good government platforms were able to gain access to the chair of important county commission committees, that would be disaster for the status quo. Of course, that is not what we are hearing from the African American protesters at county hall.
Their subtext is different: protect our feudal fiefdoms.
Mayor Carlos Alvarez should not be playing defense when there is such a clear argument to make with the voting public who showed once that they support reform and will support reform, again, if the argument is clearly made to all constituencies, including the African American community.
It makes my heart sink to understand that all the talk about "setting back the clock" is meant to rile up minorities who vote virtually in a block. It is race baiting.
It is exactly what occurred during the strong mayor referendum, when mailers were anonymously sent out warning of dire consequences to poor blacks by shady, backroom dealing if a strong mayor was elected. It wasn't true then and it is not true, now.
The fact is that the shady backroom dealing is what African American county and city commissioners have been doing to their own, for decades, on the order of "what happens in Overtown, stays in Overtown." This penny-ante stuff (a pitiful fraction of what rainmakers in the power elite provide for their own) enforces a rigid political orthodoxy in African American communities.
There have been serial examples how poor African Americans have gotten pasted by their leaders SINCE the strong mayor referendum earlier this year: Poinciana Biotech Park, wrapping up the Meeks, the un-"affordable housing" ordinance from Barbara Jordan wrapping the housing boom in South Dade to family interests, the county housing agency and JESCA fraud, wrapping up Dorin Rolle, the Umoja Village and Scott Carver Housing, wrapping up Spence Jones, and last but not least, the vote on the multi-million dollar Related project in Coconut Grove, wrapping up Barbara Carey Shuler and Spence Jones.
Here is the lesson that eyeonmiami has repeatedly emphasized (read our archive on corruption, for more if you have the stomach for it):
The current single-member district system of Florida's largest county is anchored by campaign contributions of the development lobby, represented by such interests as the Latin Builders Association and lobbyists like Miguel de Grandy, guaranteeing a dysfunctional system of government in which an African American political elite trades the perks of incumbency for votes to zone and permit new development in outlying areas or (in the case of the Related project) where few black constituents live.
It is predictable as rain. Now the question is, of course, would anything change with the addition of at-large member seats?
It depends on whether candidates for the new seats could afford to run county-wide races on a good government platform, such as the one that elected Marc Sarnoff in the City of Miami to replace the growth-at-all-costs mentality that put so many condos in downtown Miami it will take decades and tax hikes to absorb them all.
If county-wide elected commissioners who ran on good government platforms were able to gain access to the chair of important county commission committees, that would be disaster for the status quo. Of course, that is not what we are hearing from the African American protesters at county hall.
Their subtext is different: protect our feudal fiefdoms.
Mayor Carlos Alvarez should not be playing defense when there is such a clear argument to make with the voting public who showed once that they support reform and will support reform, again, if the argument is clearly made to all constituencies, including the African American community.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Parcel B History: Urban Environment League was there first. By Geniusofdespair
The UEL (Urban Environment League) reminded me they had a history at this Parcel B site that they saved from a 20 story development in 2003. The UEL has been involved with the American Airlines Arena site (Both A & B) since the early 90's when the UEL group formed -- over this issue as a matter of fact.
This Parcel B (a portion of the Arena Site) is the same site that some want to put on a Bay of Pigs Museum and Library. It looks like the UEL needs to be at the table as they want open space. (Hit on the page below to enlarge).
This Parcel B (a portion of the Arena Site) is the same site that some want to put on a Bay of Pigs Museum and Library. It looks like the UEL needs to be at the table as they want open space. (Hit on the page below to enlarge).
That Old Man: Miami River Rocks. By Geniusofdespair
"Captain Beau Payne, owner of the river’s largest tugboat company, credited the Marine Group for bringing to the public’s attention the dangers the Miami River faces from indiscriminate development, and he lauded the attorney who “killed seven with one blow” – a reference to the team of Greenberg Traurig’s seven attorneys who were stood down by one Andrew Dickman, a modern day Jack the giant killer."
Who cares about the Miami River Marine Group winning 2 lawsuits? Really.
Should you care? Should I? Yes people: You should care. This is boring but it is big news!
These are landmark decisions that have implications all over the State of Florida.
To remind you, the State of Florida makes every City and County in Florida write a Comprehensive Master Plan to guide the growth of that entity. It includes everything, transportation, water dependent uses, public access. It is a very inclusive document and fat. These plans are massive -- at least an inch thick.
Many cities and counties change the plans to suit the needs of that next big developer to catch their fancy. Or, worse, cities trample on the objectives of the Comprehensive Master Plans (Comp Plans) without a care in wanton disregard for the future by granting land use changes. That is what Florida Hometown Democracy is trying to stop but that is not our story today.
Well, here on this working river, the judges said: STOP. In fact, they shouted STOP twice! Here is why. In the Comp Plan for the City of Miami one of the objectives the City included was that the Marine Industry needed to be protected on the River. The City, not paying any attention to its own plan, decided to grant land use changes and put condos on the river. Well, guess what, the State of Florida reviews land use changes.
You can’t have people banging on boats while people in condos try to sleep they don’t mix. The city of Miami just figured Condos were a better use I guess but condos would have killed the Marine Industry and the City didn't really care.
The judges sided with the Marine Industry twice which sued based on the plan. Landmark decisions....because now we know we can sue on other parts of the plan that cities/counties don't follow and maybe win!!!!!
Here is the press release which I am now too lazy to read, I am sure it is more accurate than I have been so take their word for it:
PRESS RELEASE (Thursday, August 30, 2007)
Miami River Marine Group and Neighbors Defeat “Coastal on the River” Development
For a second time in the month of August, the Miami River’s marine industry and Durham Park neighborhood claimed a victory in the struggle with the City of Miami’s condo revolution. In a detailed 40-page opinion, the Third District Court of Appeal yesterday reversed the City in its 2006 decision to allow a land use change in the Port of Miami River from Industrial to Restricted Commercial. The Court’s reversal kills prospects for a 633-dwelling unit called Coastal on the River, a development project at 22nd Avenue and the south bank of the Miami River.
The Miami River Marine Group, the Durham Park Neighborhood Association, and Captain Herbert “Beau” Payne filed their law suit against the City and developer (Riverside Investments, LLC) arguing that the land use amendment and development project is contrary to established plans mandating the protection of the Port of Miami River – Florida’s 4th largest port – from incompatible high density developments.
The District Court agreed and ruled that the administrative law judge from the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings “erred by refusing to apply this court’s definition of the Port of Miami River, failed to consider the Port of Miami River Sub-element and critical areas of the Coastal Management and Future Land Use sections of the Comprehensive Plan, failed to consider sections of the River Master Plan, and made findings that were unsupported by the evidence, we reverse.”
Since 2000, the City has approved numerous high rise developments on Industrial riverfront lands despite protests from the marine industry and neighborhoods on the River because that they are damaging the viability of commerce on the River.
The District Court agreed that “…these “small scale” amendments, when viewed together as a whole, are changing the character of the Miami River waterfront without proper long range planning or input from appropriate agencies, departments, and citizen groups.” Captain Beau Payne, owner of the river’s largest tugboat company, credited the Marine Group for bringing to the public’s attention the dangers the Miami River faces from indiscriminate development, and he lauded the attorney who “killed seven with one blow” – a reference to the team of Greenberg Traurig’s seven attorneys who were stood down by one Andrew Dickman, a modern day Jack the giant killer.
The opinion follows a similar opinion rendered by the court on August 8, 2007, just three weeks ago, reversing the City’s approval of the 1,073-dwelling unit Hurricane Cove development located at 18th Avenue on the Miami River.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Commissioner Spence-Jones are you in trouble? By Geniusofdespair
Michelle, ma Belle, These are words that go together well: payoff my Michelle! According to sharp-as-a-tack reporter, Oscar Pedro Musibay, of the Daily Business Review: Related Group Project Subject of Inquiry.
It’s those three pesky Related Group towers at Mercy Hospital once again. They do keep themselves in the news don’t they? Apparently Commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones is accused of receiving money for her yes vote on those 3 dumb, out of scale towers.
According to the article, State Attorney Rundle said her office has launched a review:
”...investigators are examining whether City Commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones received money from the developer, Related Group, through intermediaries to guarantee her support.”
The article states further:
“Prosecutors are looking into possible roles played by Spence-Jones; her political mentor, former County Commission chairwoman Barbara Carey-Schuler; and Spence-Jones campaign adviser Barbara Hardemon, according to sources familiar with the investigation.”
Type the rest of the post here
The housing crash, environmentalists, and the way forward ... by gimleteye
So far, environmentalists have been silent on economic and political calamities tied to the housing bust. One could not expect otherwise. Environmentalists may be natural conservatives, but they are not natural capitalists.
The way forward is first of all to understand the nature of the opposition, usually painted by special interests as "what the market wants".
What the implosion of credit markets reveals, in particular related to home mortgages, is that the development patterns that engaged environmentalists in futile struggles during the housing boom now in cinders was not what the market wanted so much as what could be financed.
Environmentalists don’t need to become financiers or economic experts to decode the way forward: what they do have to do is understand that the better way to provide for growth and economic development is to demand that the securitization of home mortgages should take into account all the costs to the environment.
Putting the sharp regulatory pen to America’s vast market for housing along the lines of what benefits the environment would be anathema to so-called conservatives who made fortunes during the housing boom by wringing maximum productivity from the mass marketing and efficiencies of production home building on cheap land.
On this point, though, environmentalists need to be very clear: suburban sprawl as represented by platted subdivisions far from places of work represented the biggest subsidy ever given to any industry by the federal and state government. It wraps up billion dollar bonuses to Wall Street financiers and the budgets of the US Department of Transportation. And it turns out to wrap up trillions of dollars worth of toxic debt to investors.
In recent days, the Federal Reserve has opened the spigots hoping to ease the credit crisis in the United States. But the fallout from the housing bubble and crash is not over by a long shot.
Environmentalists need to make the case to the American people that we, the taxpayers, are becoming the lenders of last resort to a failed scheme for developing the American landscape that put hundreds of thousands of communities at risk, not to mention ecosystems, species and habitats.
The scale of financial devastation is all over the news. But the devastation to the environment has scarcely been mentioned. That imbalance must be redressed.
Environmentalists--who have been shut out from Wall Street and its important business with government in creating unsustainable debt--should do exactly as foreign investors are trying to do, today, according to a New York Times report, “Calls grow for foreigners to have a say on U.S. market rules.”
“Politicians, regulators, and financial specialists outside the United States are seeking a role in the oversight of American markets, banks and rating agencies after recent problems related to subprime mortgages. Their argument is simple: The United States is exporting financial products, but losses to investors in other countries suggest that American regulators are not properly monitoring the products or alerting investors to the risks.”
The products in question, environmentalists need to understand, are trillions of dollars of mortgages pooled from a building boom defined to a large extent by subdivisions whose low prices and homogeneity are not just because they were allowed to be built in wetlands or farmland but also because they conformed to financial formulas that allowed them to be priced at a “reasonable risk” while offering higher returns, or yields, than conventional debt.
On the retail side of the mortgage equation, liar loans and mortgage fraud ruled the day. On the wholesale side, the return on investments to indifferent investors depended on deliberately omitting "external costs" like environmental impacts--or those related to civic concerns like overburdened infrastructure, traffic, schools, and water supply.
Understand that it is as much within the rights of environmentalists to demand that underlying financial instruments should be regulated and marked to risk of species and habitat loss or poor integration with surrounding infrastructure as it is for foreign investors to ask for accountability.
“Banks and investment funds from China to France suffered losses after buying mortgage-related securities and complex financial products based on them in the United States.”
It’s true. And it is also true that the US taxpayer, as the lender of last resort, has suffered massive losses to quality of life and the environment without really understanding the complaints of foreign investors is the same as theirs.
If “moralizing financial capitalism” is going to happen, as suggested by the President Nicolas Sarkozy of France—and should—then environmentalists should prepare themselves to be at the head of the line to testify to House and Senate banking committees.
It is perfectly reasonable, for instance, to ask that rating agencies be required to penalize securitized mortgage pools that include “assets”, ie. subdivisions, built on wetlands or in buffer areas for environmentally sensitive lands like the Everglades.
The French finance minister gets the last word in the New York Times article, “Once the dust has settled we will see where the different powers stand and what will be on the bargaining table.”
If environmentalists are smart, they won’t waste a minute getting to that bargaining table—and if not invited then forcing their way in, because the home building lobby will be standing with arms-crossed barring entrance the way it always has.
The way forward is first of all to understand the nature of the opposition, usually painted by special interests as "what the market wants".
What the implosion of credit markets reveals, in particular related to home mortgages, is that the development patterns that engaged environmentalists in futile struggles during the housing boom now in cinders was not what the market wanted so much as what could be financed.
Environmentalists don’t need to become financiers or economic experts to decode the way forward: what they do have to do is understand that the better way to provide for growth and economic development is to demand that the securitization of home mortgages should take into account all the costs to the environment.
Putting the sharp regulatory pen to America’s vast market for housing along the lines of what benefits the environment would be anathema to so-called conservatives who made fortunes during the housing boom by wringing maximum productivity from the mass marketing and efficiencies of production home building on cheap land.
On this point, though, environmentalists need to be very clear: suburban sprawl as represented by platted subdivisions far from places of work represented the biggest subsidy ever given to any industry by the federal and state government. It wraps up billion dollar bonuses to Wall Street financiers and the budgets of the US Department of Transportation. And it turns out to wrap up trillions of dollars worth of toxic debt to investors.
In recent days, the Federal Reserve has opened the spigots hoping to ease the credit crisis in the United States. But the fallout from the housing bubble and crash is not over by a long shot.
Environmentalists need to make the case to the American people that we, the taxpayers, are becoming the lenders of last resort to a failed scheme for developing the American landscape that put hundreds of thousands of communities at risk, not to mention ecosystems, species and habitats.
The scale of financial devastation is all over the news. But the devastation to the environment has scarcely been mentioned. That imbalance must be redressed.
Environmentalists--who have been shut out from Wall Street and its important business with government in creating unsustainable debt--should do exactly as foreign investors are trying to do, today, according to a New York Times report, “Calls grow for foreigners to have a say on U.S. market rules.”
“Politicians, regulators, and financial specialists outside the United States are seeking a role in the oversight of American markets, banks and rating agencies after recent problems related to subprime mortgages. Their argument is simple: The United States is exporting financial products, but losses to investors in other countries suggest that American regulators are not properly monitoring the products or alerting investors to the risks.”
The products in question, environmentalists need to understand, are trillions of dollars of mortgages pooled from a building boom defined to a large extent by subdivisions whose low prices and homogeneity are not just because they were allowed to be built in wetlands or farmland but also because they conformed to financial formulas that allowed them to be priced at a “reasonable risk” while offering higher returns, or yields, than conventional debt.
On the retail side of the mortgage equation, liar loans and mortgage fraud ruled the day. On the wholesale side, the return on investments to indifferent investors depended on deliberately omitting "external costs" like environmental impacts--or those related to civic concerns like overburdened infrastructure, traffic, schools, and water supply.
Understand that it is as much within the rights of environmentalists to demand that underlying financial instruments should be regulated and marked to risk of species and habitat loss or poor integration with surrounding infrastructure as it is for foreign investors to ask for accountability.
“Banks and investment funds from China to France suffered losses after buying mortgage-related securities and complex financial products based on them in the United States.”
It’s true. And it is also true that the US taxpayer, as the lender of last resort, has suffered massive losses to quality of life and the environment without really understanding the complaints of foreign investors is the same as theirs.
If “moralizing financial capitalism” is going to happen, as suggested by the President Nicolas Sarkozy of France—and should—then environmentalists should prepare themselves to be at the head of the line to testify to House and Senate banking committees.
It is perfectly reasonable, for instance, to ask that rating agencies be required to penalize securitized mortgage pools that include “assets”, ie. subdivisions, built on wetlands or in buffer areas for environmentally sensitive lands like the Everglades.
The French finance minister gets the last word in the New York Times article, “Once the dust has settled we will see where the different powers stand and what will be on the bargaining table.”
If environmentalists are smart, they won’t waste a minute getting to that bargaining table—and if not invited then forcing their way in, because the home building lobby will be standing with arms-crossed barring entrance the way it always has.
NAACP: Speak out but clean house first! By Geniusofdespair
The problem I have with the Women's Political Caucus is the same one I have with the NAACP. The support of women for political positions, just because they are women, and the support of inferior black politicians just because they are black -- both are just plain wrong.
The NAACP held a march yesterday: Black marchers call for resignation of Dade officials. Well, how about a resignation of that embarrassment, Commissioner Dorrin Rolle? And, many of the others are not much better. These Commissioners use the County as their feifdoms. There is is an absence of improvements or progress in places like Liberty City or Overtown and these black Commissioners have been governing there for years and years. Victor, Brad: Do you have to get hit over the head with a sledge hammer? As long as the NAACP remains silent on the crappy leaders that are in power in Miami Dade, the NAACP has no place criticizing the Mayor or others.
The NAACP becomes part of the problem when it looks the other way at the failings of the black leadership in government positions. Clean house!
I can embrace the NAACP request for proportional voting over at large voting but district voting (what we have now) has produced some of the worst candidates I have ever seen. It has got to go.
The NAACP held a march yesterday: Black marchers call for resignation of Dade officials. Well, how about a resignation of that embarrassment, Commissioner Dorrin Rolle? And, many of the others are not much better. These Commissioners use the County as their feifdoms. There is is an absence of improvements or progress in places like Liberty City or Overtown and these black Commissioners have been governing there for years and years. Victor, Brad: Do you have to get hit over the head with a sledge hammer? As long as the NAACP remains silent on the crappy leaders that are in power in Miami Dade, the NAACP has no place criticizing the Mayor or others.
The NAACP becomes part of the problem when it looks the other way at the failings of the black leadership in government positions. Clean house!
I can embrace the NAACP request for proportional voting over at large voting but district voting (what we have now) has produced some of the worst candidates I have ever seen. It has got to go.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Let the prices fall, let markets find their equilibrium, by gimleteye
The subprime mortgage sector is cooked to a fare-thee-well. Across the globe, hedge funds and financial institutions are blowing up on long-delay fuses as combustible toxic mortgage waste is repriced to meet redemption calls by anxious investors.
Still, it's just a start to what began unfolding in Florida at the start of 2007: the implosion of the biggest housing boom in state history.
But as pilloried as the subprime sector has been, it makes just as much sense that home buyers deemed to be credit-worthy who bought jumbo loans and far too much home than their incomes could reasonably support are next in line for default rates in excess of bond insurance (for investors in the derivatives cobbled together from the asset bubble) and that these mortgage-holders represent a far bigger problem to markets for securitized debt assembled from large pools of the giddy, the unrealistic, and delusionary.
The question now arises as to the moral responsibility of governments and financial institutions to pick up the pieces of the massive asset bubble they created in the first place. So far, not so good.
It has been difficult for the financial press and for politicians to get a handle on the extent of the economic crisis triggered by the housing boom now in cinders.
The debate about what to do is ironic in the context of the debate about the nation’s moral responsibility to continue the war in Iraq.
Strange that the nation that elected a president based on values is now possessed by a government debating its moral responsibility to rescue voters and taxpayers from its own values.
The writer James Howard Kunstler calls America “clusterfuck nation”, , and he won't get any argument from me.
The mainstream media is finally catching on that the housing market crisis will be the major issue in the 2008 election cycle.
It has finally teased from the Goldman Sachs of the world that we are only beginning to see the waves of economic casualties from the implosion of the housing boom.
“This is really just the beginning… there’s a big wave of defaults coming over the next 12 to 18 months,” said Karen Weaver, global director of securitization research for Deutsche Bank to the New York Times (“In Washington, Measuring a Lifeline”, August 28th).
The Times article goes on to describe discussions in Congress, over what shape and form a government bail-out should take and the fundamental question, “should the government ride to the rescue”.
For a better review, the economist Nouriel Roubini blogs on the same topic.
In the Financial Times, Larry Summers – former secretary of the Treasury –writes: “what is the role for public authorities in supporting the flow of credit to the housing sector? The lesson learnt during the S&L debacle was that it was catastrophic to finance home ownership through insured banking institutions that borrowed short term and then offered long-term fixed-rate home mortgages. Now a system reliant on securitisation, adjustable rate mortgages and non-insured financial institutions has broken down.
It is undeniably true that the system of securitization, or financial derivatives as they are generically called, financed the asset bubble in housing in the United States. But Summers doesn't offer any prescription.
Warren Buffet called derivatives “weapons of mass financial destruction”: was he ever right.
The financial institutions that securitize mortgages are like the Department of Transportation for growth and development: immune from any measurable criticism.
Economists—far from the battleground in communities and civic activists who tried, over the past decade, to protect their neighborhoods from greedy local developers and bankers and consulting engineers and land use attorneys—are trying to fit a round peg in a square hole by recommending expanded authority for the government sponsored entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
If anything emerges from a regulatory response to the credit crisis, it should start with backing down those weapons of financial mass destruction. Does Congress have the guts to confront Wall Street: we'll see.
Still, it's just a start to what began unfolding in Florida at the start of 2007: the implosion of the biggest housing boom in state history.
But as pilloried as the subprime sector has been, it makes just as much sense that home buyers deemed to be credit-worthy who bought jumbo loans and far too much home than their incomes could reasonably support are next in line for default rates in excess of bond insurance (for investors in the derivatives cobbled together from the asset bubble) and that these mortgage-holders represent a far bigger problem to markets for securitized debt assembled from large pools of the giddy, the unrealistic, and delusionary.
The question now arises as to the moral responsibility of governments and financial institutions to pick up the pieces of the massive asset bubble they created in the first place. So far, not so good.
It has been difficult for the financial press and for politicians to get a handle on the extent of the economic crisis triggered by the housing boom now in cinders.
The debate about what to do is ironic in the context of the debate about the nation’s moral responsibility to continue the war in Iraq.
Strange that the nation that elected a president based on values is now possessed by a government debating its moral responsibility to rescue voters and taxpayers from its own values.
The writer James Howard Kunstler calls America “clusterfuck nation”, , and he won't get any argument from me.
The mainstream media is finally catching on that the housing market crisis will be the major issue in the 2008 election cycle.
It has finally teased from the Goldman Sachs of the world that we are only beginning to see the waves of economic casualties from the implosion of the housing boom.
“This is really just the beginning… there’s a big wave of defaults coming over the next 12 to 18 months,” said Karen Weaver, global director of securitization research for Deutsche Bank to the New York Times (“In Washington, Measuring a Lifeline”, August 28th).
The Times article goes on to describe discussions in Congress, over what shape and form a government bail-out should take and the fundamental question, “should the government ride to the rescue”.
For a better review, the economist Nouriel Roubini blogs on the same topic.
In the Financial Times, Larry Summers – former secretary of the Treasury –writes: “what is the role for public authorities in supporting the flow of credit to the housing sector? The lesson learnt during the S&L debacle was that it was catastrophic to finance home ownership through insured banking institutions that borrowed short term and then offered long-term fixed-rate home mortgages. Now a system reliant on securitisation, adjustable rate mortgages and non-insured financial institutions has broken down.
It is undeniably true that the system of securitization, or financial derivatives as they are generically called, financed the asset bubble in housing in the United States. But Summers doesn't offer any prescription.
Warren Buffet called derivatives “weapons of mass financial destruction”: was he ever right.
The financial institutions that securitize mortgages are like the Department of Transportation for growth and development: immune from any measurable criticism.
Economists—far from the battleground in communities and civic activists who tried, over the past decade, to protect their neighborhoods from greedy local developers and bankers and consulting engineers and land use attorneys—are trying to fit a round peg in a square hole by recommending expanded authority for the government sponsored entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
If anything emerges from a regulatory response to the credit crisis, it should start with backing down those weapons of financial mass destruction. Does Congress have the guts to confront Wall Street: we'll see.
Coconut Grove: Help Mike Suarez Win Against Angel! Guest Blog by MikeSupporter
Grovers and Vizcayans: Are you still mad about the vote for the 3 Towers at Mercy Hospital? Well, you can get even and get rid of one of the Commissioners that voted for it. Angel Gonzalez has a challenger! There is an article about Mike Suarez, in the SunPost: Some Youthful Idealism . Mike Suarez is a friend and I support him so I can tell you that he is working hard for this seat. He walks door-to-door everyday through the neighborhoods, and is getting a good reception. People are so happy to see his youthful, tanned and smiling face instead of the wizened countenance of the mean incumbent! Some might think he's a long shot, but I'm betting he's every bit the miracle candidate that Marc Sarnoff was (remember him? Overcoming odds that were four to one?) I say, let's help him. A simple check to the Mike Suarez Campaign could do the trick and turn the tide to better government. Send a contribution to: Mike Suarez. 5201 NW 7th Street, #410, Miami, FL 33126.
He looks good, he sounds good and best of all: He ain't Angel.
You might wake up to the Miami Herald: I wake up to much more by Geniusofdespair
I get news that impacts Florida delivered to my email from all over the State and the Country — I read articles by some really good reporters in Florida — Here is one:
Column
For sale: One state, everything must go
By HOWARD TROXLER
Published August 19, 2007
Wipe out 2,000 acres of wetlands in the Florida Panhandle to build an airport?
Sure. We have to do it.
Otherwise, developers might miss a spot of the state. And we can't have that.
Here's what was striking about last week's approval of a $330-million airport northwest of Panama City:
It felt like the year was around 1965, and a bunch of guys in horned-rimmed glasses were bragging about how they were going to Put Florida on the Map.
Florida's governor, Charlie Crist, hailed the airport's approval because, he said, it will "attract new businesses and jobs to grow and diversify the local economy."
(Then Crist went out and appointed a couple more gator rasslers to the Florida Fish, Wildlife and Manatee-Eatin' Commission.)
Realtors predicted the airport would be just the thing for jump-starting the Panhandle's real estate market.
"Once they start turning dirt," one declared, "we'll see things really rapidly escalate."
The St. Joe Co., the Panhandle's biggest developer, wanted this airport and is donating the land for it.
As for Panama City's old, waterfront airport - well, there are big plans for that land, too. They're going to preserve that waterfront for future generations.
Ha, ha! Just kidding. They're selling it to a developer from Pittsburgh. "It's a phenomenal site ... 12,500 feet of waterfront," he told a Pittsburgh paper last week. "You just don't find that kind of acreage in that area available."
No, you don't.
Here's my favorite part of this deal, besides the fact that federal and state taxpayers are paying for it. In return for destroying 2,000 acres of wetlands, St. Joe graciously promises not to destroy another 9,000 acres that lie nearby.
As opposed, one might ask, to what? What were they gonna do otherwise, burn it down? But the company president bragged about this deal protecting some of Mother Nature's "best work."
No matter. It is a done deal. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers says so.
As for why the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has such a hatred for Florida and schemes for its destruction, I am not sure. Maybe it dates to the Civil War or something.
In darker hours, I fear that we are just kidding ourselves by worrying about the future of Florida at all. The future was decided a long time ago.
It consists of building something on every vacant piece of land in this state as long as there is a dollar to be made.
No government can stand in the way. In fact, the chief purpose of government in Florida is to help the process along, under the fake name of "planning."
It's true in Hillsborough County, where developers got the County Commission to weaken wetlands protection in a vote on Thursday.
It's true in Pinellas, where the government tries to interpret the words "nature preserve" in an ever more creative fashion.
It's true in Pasco, fast on its way to becoming the County of Shopping Malls.
This is why the Hometown Democracy movement, which seeks direct voter control of growth in Florida, really is such an important battle. The locals, see, voted against that Panhandle airport.
It also explains why the forces of development are so afraid of Hometown Democracy, and will do whatever it takes to stop it. They have not finished paving Florida yet.
(WE LINK TO HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY - ON THE RIGHT)
Column
For sale: One state, everything must go
By HOWARD TROXLER
Published August 19, 2007
Wipe out 2,000 acres of wetlands in the Florida Panhandle to build an airport?
Sure. We have to do it.
Otherwise, developers might miss a spot of the state. And we can't have that.
Here's what was striking about last week's approval of a $330-million airport northwest of Panama City:
It felt like the year was around 1965, and a bunch of guys in horned-rimmed glasses were bragging about how they were going to Put Florida on the Map.
Florida's governor, Charlie Crist, hailed the airport's approval because, he said, it will "attract new businesses and jobs to grow and diversify the local economy."
(Then Crist went out and appointed a couple more gator rasslers to the Florida Fish, Wildlife and Manatee-Eatin' Commission.)
Realtors predicted the airport would be just the thing for jump-starting the Panhandle's real estate market.
"Once they start turning dirt," one declared, "we'll see things really rapidly escalate."
The St. Joe Co., the Panhandle's biggest developer, wanted this airport and is donating the land for it.
As for Panama City's old, waterfront airport - well, there are big plans for that land, too. They're going to preserve that waterfront for future generations.
Ha, ha! Just kidding. They're selling it to a developer from Pittsburgh. "It's a phenomenal site ... 12,500 feet of waterfront," he told a Pittsburgh paper last week. "You just don't find that kind of acreage in that area available."
No, you don't.
Here's my favorite part of this deal, besides the fact that federal and state taxpayers are paying for it. In return for destroying 2,000 acres of wetlands, St. Joe graciously promises not to destroy another 9,000 acres that lie nearby.
As opposed, one might ask, to what? What were they gonna do otherwise, burn it down? But the company president bragged about this deal protecting some of Mother Nature's "best work."
No matter. It is a done deal. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers says so.
As for why the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has such a hatred for Florida and schemes for its destruction, I am not sure. Maybe it dates to the Civil War or something.
In darker hours, I fear that we are just kidding ourselves by worrying about the future of Florida at all. The future was decided a long time ago.
It consists of building something on every vacant piece of land in this state as long as there is a dollar to be made.
No government can stand in the way. In fact, the chief purpose of government in Florida is to help the process along, under the fake name of "planning."
It's true in Hillsborough County, where developers got the County Commission to weaken wetlands protection in a vote on Thursday.
It's true in Pinellas, where the government tries to interpret the words "nature preserve" in an ever more creative fashion.
It's true in Pasco, fast on its way to becoming the County of Shopping Malls.
This is why the Hometown Democracy movement, which seeks direct voter control of growth in Florida, really is such an important battle. The locals, see, voted against that Panhandle airport.
It also explains why the forces of development are so afraid of Hometown Democracy, and will do whatever it takes to stop it. They have not finished paving Florida yet.
(WE LINK TO HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY - ON THE RIGHT)
Bay of Pigs Museum at American Airlines Arena is on Sept. 4th County Agenda by Geniusofdespair
Playing shamelessly to their power base, this resolution now is sponsored by two stupid Commissioners instead of one and is on the County Commission Agenda for September 4th. Both dim Bruno Barreiro and the ever cocky Joe Martinez are moving forward File No. 072049 which they are calling "Develop Bay of Pigs Museum & Library at Parcel B of FEC Property." This resolution directs the County Manager to prepare a conceptual study analyzing development of the Bay of Pigs Museum and Library for what we all fondly call Parcel B. The Recreation and Cultural Affairs Committee has already forwarded it 7/16 with a favorable recommendation. It was moved by Edmonson, seconded by Moss and Sorenson, Rolle and Souto voted to move it along.The legislative text goes on to say:
"The County Manager shall include as part of the conceptual study a section which addresses the following: the feasibility of underground parking, the provision of public open space, the development of a baywalk and options to mitigate any material impact to operation of the Arena arising from development of Parcel B. The County Manager shall present the conceptual study to this Board within ninety (90) days from the effective date of this resolution."
Maybe we can incorporate a statue or building celebrating Castro's death as well at the site. It could be like the Mystic Seaport Gallery where you have a different exhibit building/area for each thing. Or, an even better idea, why couldn't this museum/library be incorporated into the Freedom Tower's ample exhibit space? It would make more sense there.
Park Activist Steve Hagen has threatened to stand in front of the bulldozer. You had better get ready Steve, this train is on the track and it is gaining steam! Steve and others are not against the museum and library. They are against the location. People are angry enough because of the two museums slated for Bicentennial Park, this one is just one too many. Think about another location Commissioners, Parcel B is not the right one.
Monday, August 27, 2007
County Paying $23,057,500 for Signage at Airport and $2.2 Billion for Toilet Water Treatment. by Geniusofdespair
According to resolution No. 072116, on the Sept. 4th Agenda, we will be paying for a maximum contract amount of $23,057,500 for signs at the Miami Money Pit (airport). Anyone besides me think that is a bit pricey for Airport signage?
Of course, even more expensive, we have the $2.2 billion dollars for getting rid of our toilet water abd reclaiming it for other uses -- According to the County Manager's background report for Resolution 072024:
"On July 22, 2003, the Board adopted Resolution R-811-03 approving and adopting the 2003 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan Including Interim Peak Flow Management Plan (2003 PLAN) with an estimated capital cost of $2.2 billion, to meet the wastewater demands to the year 2020. The 2003 PLAN was submitted to the FDEP for approval to qualify for SRF. The FDEP did not approve the 2003 PLAN because it did not include an evaluation of reuse as part of the wastewater disposal options, as such, MDWASD hired a consultant to conduct a reuse feasibility study, and in April 2007, an updated Reuse Feasibility Study was completed. The Reuse Feasibility Study’s recommended alternative has been incorporated into the 2007 PLAN which contains the necessary capital projects to meet the County’s wastewater demands to the year 2025. These capital projects include reclaimed water projects at the existing North, Central, and South District Wastewater Treatment Plants; and at a new West District Water Reclamation Plant. These projects are also part of the County’s alternative water supply plan and have been developed in order to obtain a 20-year consumptive use permit from the South Florida Water Management District. The proposed West District Water Reclamation Plant will be located in the vicinity of the Bird Drive Basin, which is consistent with the West Miami-Dade Reuse Project included in CERP. The 2007 PLAN also includes updated average and peak flow demand projections based on more recent population projections and actual peak flow conditions and extended the planning period to the year 2025.
An approved Wastewater Facilities Master Plan is the first step in obtaining approval for SRF low-interest loans from the FDEP. FDEP has verbally committed $100 million for the high level disinfection projects, which are included in the 2007 PLAN, to construct a 285 millions gallon per day facility at the South District Wastewater Treatment Plant. The 2007 PLAN has been prepared in accordance with the guidelines established by the State of Florida to qualify for the SRF Program."
And, people, an approved Wastewater Facilities Master Plan will also move development forward again, which has been stopped temporarily by the State of Florida because of our "shitty" wastewater policies! (You can take that both ways).
Of course, even more expensive, we have the $2.2 billion dollars for getting rid of our toilet water abd reclaiming it for other uses -- According to the County Manager's background report for Resolution 072024:
"On July 22, 2003, the Board adopted Resolution R-811-03 approving and adopting the 2003 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan Including Interim Peak Flow Management Plan (2003 PLAN) with an estimated capital cost of $2.2 billion, to meet the wastewater demands to the year 2020. The 2003 PLAN was submitted to the FDEP for approval to qualify for SRF. The FDEP did not approve the 2003 PLAN because it did not include an evaluation of reuse as part of the wastewater disposal options, as such, MDWASD hired a consultant to conduct a reuse feasibility study, and in April 2007, an updated Reuse Feasibility Study was completed. The Reuse Feasibility Study’s recommended alternative has been incorporated into the 2007 PLAN which contains the necessary capital projects to meet the County’s wastewater demands to the year 2025. These capital projects include reclaimed water projects at the existing North, Central, and South District Wastewater Treatment Plants; and at a new West District Water Reclamation Plant. These projects are also part of the County’s alternative water supply plan and have been developed in order to obtain a 20-year consumptive use permit from the South Florida Water Management District. The proposed West District Water Reclamation Plant will be located in the vicinity of the Bird Drive Basin, which is consistent with the West Miami-Dade Reuse Project included in CERP. The 2007 PLAN also includes updated average and peak flow demand projections based on more recent population projections and actual peak flow conditions and extended the planning period to the year 2025.
An approved Wastewater Facilities Master Plan is the first step in obtaining approval for SRF low-interest loans from the FDEP. FDEP has verbally committed $100 million for the high level disinfection projects, which are included in the 2007 PLAN, to construct a 285 millions gallon per day facility at the South District Wastewater Treatment Plant. The 2007 PLAN has been prepared in accordance with the guidelines established by the State of Florida to qualify for the SRF Program."
And, people, an approved Wastewater Facilities Master Plan will also move development forward again, which has been stopped temporarily by the State of Florida because of our "shitty" wastewater policies! (You can take that both ways).
How things work in Florida, by gimleteye
Some of you will remember the controversial plan to turn over the Homestead Air Force Base to a group of politically connected insiders in Miami-Dade County, and the scrambling for political advantage that stretched all the way to the White House. There can be a lot of profit in turbulence, and that is especially true when it comes to siting big infrastructure projects in wetlands. Think Scripps, rock mining, zero lot line housing.
Well another version of an airport battle is unspooling, right now, on the order of promises made by former Governor Jeb Bush to friends and allies at the St. Joe Company--a publicly traded corporation that is one of the largest land owners in Florida with its own deep connections to Miami.
Diane Roberts captures the essence in a weekend editorial that appeared in the Tallahassee Democrat .
Curious that this appealing editorial tone of Ms. Roberts never appears on The Miami Herald editorial page, except through Carl Hiaasen's infrequent diatribes.
St. Joe's flight plan: Buckle up, there's turbulence ahead
By Diane Roberts
MY VIEW
"Florida is like Lewis Carroll's Looking-Glass Land, a place where up
is down, where ignorance is strength, where we must destroy this
environment in order to save it. So when the Army Corps of Engineers,
whose job it is to protect America's wetlands, grants a permit for the
obliteration of thousands of acres of wetlands for an unnecessary and
unwanted new Panama City airport, I guess that's looking-glass logic.
Panama City already has an airport, conveniently located in Panama
City. The argument for replacing it - the public argument, that is -
rests on the claim that the runway is too short (thus unsafe); never
mind that, according to the FAA, 40 percent of the nation's airports
have this same problem. Yet they are not all rushing to build new
airports, especially in ecologically fragile areas.
The local captains of capitalism insist that the people of Bay County
are clamoring for a facility bigger than Tampa International. But
Panama City runs exactly 13 flights a day, down from a high of 22 in
2001. The new multimillion-dollar terminal is quiet as an Alabama
liquor store on Sunday, and the control tower shuts down at 10 p.m.
There's also the inconvenient fact that, when Bay County citizens had
a chance to vote in a nonbinding referendum in 2004, they rejected the
new airport. Curiouser and curiouser. What part of NO do the allegedly
democracy-loving Chamber of Commerce types not understand?
Now, a suspicious person might wonder what's really going down on the
other side of the mirror. If I tell you that the St. Joe Company
donated the 4,000 acres for the replacement airport - a parcel 30
miles away from the populace it purports to serve, but coincidentally
smack in the middle of land St. Joe wants to develop - does that bring
the thing into focus?
It gets weirder: The outfit overseeing the building of the airport (if
it gets past a slew of lawsuits) is Kellogg, Brown and Root, raiders
of the public purse. In Iraq, KBR was handed no-bid "rebuilding"
contracts the way guys at a frat party hand beers to girls. In the
Balkans, it charged $85.98 each for sheets of plywood that ought to go
for 14 bucks, according to the watchdog CorpWatch. It also agreed to
pay $2 million in a suit alleging that it improperly charged the
government for services.
So the Army Corps of Engineers, the people whose shoddy levee-building
brought you the Katrina floods, is enabling KBR to land us with a
behemoth of an airport to benefit St. Joe, the company that brought
you Disneyfied developments such as SouthWood. As for the old Panama
City airportÐwaterfront property, by the way - it's due to be sold to
a real estate developer from Pittsburgh.
I hear Jeb Bush laughing in the background.
The cream of the jest is that you, the citizens of Florida, will pay
for it: about $300 million at first, then much, much more as the St.
Joe Company turns its vast acreage in West Florida into ersatz
villages for rich folks dreaming of a bucolic existence with a freeway
and a megamall nearby.
St. Joe., its political minions and the Bay County Chamber
cheerleaders fall all over themselves insisting that, as the airport
referendum falsely claimed, this will magically happen "at no cost to
taxpayers." It's money from governmental agencies, they say.
But the FAA and the DOT don't get their appropriations from bake sales
and raffles. You will shell out for new roads, new water systems,
sewer and power services. You are the cash cow for this almighty
boondoggle.
And what will Florida get in return for this lavish corporate welfare?
The new airport and surrounding development will kill more than 10,000
acres of springs, feeder creeks and deep swamps that keep West Bay a
vibrant estuarine ecosystem. The wetlands that act as a storm water
filtering system will be wiped out.
But hey, ever since the announcement of the Corps permit, St. Joe
share prices have gone up. Stockholders are happy. So everything's
fine. Big is good; concrete is beautiful. " 'The question is,' said
Humpty-Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.' "
Diane Roberts is a Florida native and author of "Dream State." She
teaches creative writing at Florida State University. Contact her at
droberts@english.fsu.edu.
Well another version of an airport battle is unspooling, right now, on the order of promises made by former Governor Jeb Bush to friends and allies at the St. Joe Company--a publicly traded corporation that is one of the largest land owners in Florida with its own deep connections to Miami.
Diane Roberts captures the essence in a weekend editorial that appeared in the Tallahassee Democrat .
Curious that this appealing editorial tone of Ms. Roberts never appears on The Miami Herald editorial page, except through Carl Hiaasen's infrequent diatribes.
St. Joe's flight plan: Buckle up, there's turbulence ahead
By Diane Roberts
MY VIEW
"Florida is like Lewis Carroll's Looking-Glass Land, a place where up
is down, where ignorance is strength, where we must destroy this
environment in order to save it. So when the Army Corps of Engineers,
whose job it is to protect America's wetlands, grants a permit for the
obliteration of thousands of acres of wetlands for an unnecessary and
unwanted new Panama City airport, I guess that's looking-glass logic.
Panama City already has an airport, conveniently located in Panama
City. The argument for replacing it - the public argument, that is -
rests on the claim that the runway is too short (thus unsafe); never
mind that, according to the FAA, 40 percent of the nation's airports
have this same problem. Yet they are not all rushing to build new
airports, especially in ecologically fragile areas.
The local captains of capitalism insist that the people of Bay County
are clamoring for a facility bigger than Tampa International. But
Panama City runs exactly 13 flights a day, down from a high of 22 in
2001. The new multimillion-dollar terminal is quiet as an Alabama
liquor store on Sunday, and the control tower shuts down at 10 p.m.
There's also the inconvenient fact that, when Bay County citizens had
a chance to vote in a nonbinding referendum in 2004, they rejected the
new airport. Curiouser and curiouser. What part of NO do the allegedly
democracy-loving Chamber of Commerce types not understand?
Now, a suspicious person might wonder what's really going down on the
other side of the mirror. If I tell you that the St. Joe Company
donated the 4,000 acres for the replacement airport - a parcel 30
miles away from the populace it purports to serve, but coincidentally
smack in the middle of land St. Joe wants to develop - does that bring
the thing into focus?
It gets weirder: The outfit overseeing the building of the airport (if
it gets past a slew of lawsuits) is Kellogg, Brown and Root, raiders
of the public purse. In Iraq, KBR was handed no-bid "rebuilding"
contracts the way guys at a frat party hand beers to girls. In the
Balkans, it charged $85.98 each for sheets of plywood that ought to go
for 14 bucks, according to the watchdog CorpWatch. It also agreed to
pay $2 million in a suit alleging that it improperly charged the
government for services.
So the Army Corps of Engineers, the people whose shoddy levee-building
brought you the Katrina floods, is enabling KBR to land us with a
behemoth of an airport to benefit St. Joe, the company that brought
you Disneyfied developments such as SouthWood. As for the old Panama
City airportÐwaterfront property, by the way - it's due to be sold to
a real estate developer from Pittsburgh.
I hear Jeb Bush laughing in the background.
The cream of the jest is that you, the citizens of Florida, will pay
for it: about $300 million at first, then much, much more as the St.
Joe Company turns its vast acreage in West Florida into ersatz
villages for rich folks dreaming of a bucolic existence with a freeway
and a megamall nearby.
St. Joe., its political minions and the Bay County Chamber
cheerleaders fall all over themselves insisting that, as the airport
referendum falsely claimed, this will magically happen "at no cost to
taxpayers." It's money from governmental agencies, they say.
But the FAA and the DOT don't get their appropriations from bake sales
and raffles. You will shell out for new roads, new water systems,
sewer and power services. You are the cash cow for this almighty
boondoggle.
And what will Florida get in return for this lavish corporate welfare?
The new airport and surrounding development will kill more than 10,000
acres of springs, feeder creeks and deep swamps that keep West Bay a
vibrant estuarine ecosystem. The wetlands that act as a storm water
filtering system will be wiped out.
But hey, ever since the announcement of the Corps permit, St. Joe
share prices have gone up. Stockholders are happy. So everything's
fine. Big is good; concrete is beautiful. " 'The question is,' said
Humpty-Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.' "
Diane Roberts is a Florida native and author of "Dream State." She
teaches creative writing at Florida State University. Contact her at
droberts@english.fsu.edu.
Proportional Representation as a Miami Dade County charter change? By Geniusofdespair
(Presdient of the Miami Dade Branch of the NAACP Bishop Victor T. Curry)
The NAACP is advocating for some form of proportional representation (instead of districts or at large seats). I like the idea but it is almost impossible to explain because it comes in many forms.
According to Rob Richie and Steve Hill of the Center for Voting and Democracy,
"National groups recently endorsing proportional representation include the Sierra Club, US PIRG, Alliance for Democracy, and NOW, while state affiliates of Common Cause and the League of Women Voters support IRV legislation. The League of Women Voters is conducting national studies of voting system reform, as are four state League chapters. The NAACP, the ACLU, and other civil rights groups are studying alternative voting systems as a means to preserve minority representation in the upcoming round of redistricting."
Richie and Hill say about our form, Districts: Contrary to their reputation, single-seat districts don't represent geographic interests very well.
In a nutshell with proportional voting:
1. You decide which candidates you would like to see elected.
2. You rank those candidates in order of preference -- knowing that a lower choice will never hurt the chances of a higher choice.
That's it! Your vote will be counted toward the highest candidate on your ranked list who can be helped by your vote. As many people as mathematically possible will elect one person -- most voters will help elect one of their top two choices.
This is what Brad Brown of the NAACP said about this subject at the Charter Review Meeting on August 15th:
"There are a plethora of issues related to possible revisions of the Miami-Dade Charter but none more important than achieving solid citizen representation on the Board of County Commissioners. Suggestions have been floated to add at large commissioners under the theory that districts representation is not effective in looking at county wide needs. (Think of how this logic would apply to our current Federal system with district and state representatives asked to vote on national wide issues like national security). At large elections have been seen to lead to a tyranny of the majority and thus have often lost in court under voting rights law challenges to district elections. District elections themselves have problems. While they may provide minority representation and ensure neglected areas can have a voice, demographics are not a constant. The appeal of members of the Haitian community for changes in the number of commissioners is a testament to this reality. Changing districts specifically to ensure minority representation can run into constitutional challenges.
There is however an alternative that has proven itself around the world. It is proportional voting. There are a number of forms that this can take and one or another form is used in 21 of the 28 countries in Europe. It is found throughout the world in numerous other countries such as Australia, Israel, South Africa, and Brazil. It has been credited with being a significant factor in stopping the violence and achieving peace between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland as it helped ensure that everyone felt represented. The possibilities for representation in proportional voting leads to much better voting turn outs in the 75 to 90% range in contrast to the U.S. where turnout is usually less than 50%.
In the United States an good example is the City of Cambridge Massachusetts which established a form of proportional voting in 1941 in order to create opportunities for Black representation on the city council and it has been successful for over 65 years. Proportional voting offers an opportunity for minority representation and allows members of such a group to feel represented no matter where they live but it is not focused on a criteria such as race or ethnicity as is often districting. In reality it is common interest groups that define themselves, the candidates they run and who they vote for. While race and ethnicity often are seen as shaping a common interest, persons concerned about an issue like affordable housing, water supply etc can coalesce throughout the voting area and have an excellent opportunity of gaining a voice on the governing body.
I urge the Taskforce to think out of the box and review voting alternatives that not only will provide for representation that would encourage larger turnouts, and fairer representation today but would continue to do that as the population changes and areas where people live shift and groups defined by common interests change."
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Who is getting ripped off in the County on their property taxes? By Geniusofdespair
It appears the people in Unincorporated Dade are getting ripped off on their taxes. Valentine (see below) got the best deal and she paid less taxes and got the most expensive house -- twice as expensive!! And Valentine's house is in North Miami, not known for low taxes.The reason? Well, part of it is the new houses in Homestead have those tacked on developer fees for roads, sewers etc. They are called "Levying Authority: Non-Ad Valorem Assessments" and new homeowners usually get this added on their taxes for at least 10 years. But here is the surprise: the unincorporated areas also have levying authority taxes. Never knew this. They charge for Garbage, trash, recyling. I have a few examples that follow, so you can compare. I took out some of their tax expenses, I just left the major expenses. It is hard to compare apples to oranges but you can make some conclusions. Millage rates? I don't know but taxes sure are unfair (Hit read more to compare).
New House in Homestead
SERGIO with a homestead bought a new home in 3/2006 for $349,900
Taxes:
SCHOOL BOARD 7.69100 241,034 1853.79
COUNTY WIDE OPERATING 5.61500 241,034 1353.41
CITY OF HOMESTEAD OPERATING 6.25000 241,034 1506.46
Levying Authority Rate Footage/Units Amount
SOUTH DADE VENTURES 1.0000 1262.41 1262.41
Combined taxes and assessments (gross amount) for 2006 : $7179.74
MIRTA bought a new home with a homestead in 1/2006 for $325,000
Taxes:
SCHOOL BOARD 7.69100 210,125 1616.07
COUNTY WIDE OPERATING 5.61500 210,125 1179.85
CITY OF HOMESTEAD OPERATING 6.25000 210,125 1313.28
Non-Ad Valorem Assessments
Levying Authority Rate Footage/Units Amount
SOUTH DADE VENTURES 1.0000 1211.89 1211.89
Combined taxes and assessments (gross amount) for 2006 : $6370.42
Unincorporated area of Southwest Dade:
ALEJANDRO bought (a resale) with a homestead in 4/2006 for $543,000
SCHOOL BOARD 7.69100 434,268 3339.96
COUNTY WIDE OPERATING 5.61500 434,268 2438.41
UNINCORPORATED OPERATING 2.44700 434,268 1062.65
Non-Ad Valorem Assessments
Levying Authority Rate Footage/Units Amount
GARB,TRASH,TRC,RECYCLE 439.0000 1.00 439.00
Combined taxes and assessments (gross amount) for 2006 : $9448.68
Resales in North Dade (not new homes):
Unincorporated Areas:
FATEMEH bought in 4/2006 For $355,000
Taxes:
SCHOOL BOARD 7.69100 308,152 2370.00
COUNTY WIDE OPERATING 5.61500 308,152 1730.27
UNINCORPORATED OPERATING 2.44700 308,152 754.05
Levying Authority
GARB,TRASH,TRC,RECYCLE 439.0000 2.00 878.00
BISCAYNE .4291 134.00 57.50
Combined taxes and assessments (gross amount) for 2006 : $7328.66
FREDERICK with a homestead bought in 2/2006 for $344,000
Taxes:
SCHOOL BOARD 7.69100 332,716 2558.92
COUNTY WIDE OPERATING 5.61500 332,716 1868.20
UNINCORPORATED OPERATING 2.44700 332,716 814.16
Non-Ad Valorem Assessments
Levying Authority Rate Footage/Units Amount
GARB,TRASH,TRC,RECYCLE 439.0000 2.00 878.00
BISCAYNE .4291 70.00 30.04
Combined taxes and assessments (gross amount) for 2006 : $7810.83
City of North Miami:
(One might ask why assessments are so much lower in the North of the County, Valentines $725,000 home is being taxes on $241,308 and Dante's $720,000 home is being taxed on $312,602.)
VALENTINE with a homestead bought in 3/2006 for $725,000
Taxes: (It looks like they assessed her very low)
SCHOOL BOARD 7.69100 241,308 1855.90
COUNTY WIDE OPERATING 5.61500 241,308 1354.94
CITY OF NORTH MIAMI OPERATING 8.30000 241,308 2002.86
Combined taxes and assessments (gross amount) for 2006 : $6340.73
DANTE with a Homestead bought 10/2006 for $720,000
Taxes: (remember he pays $1,167 for a guard at this gated community)
SCHOOL BOARD 7.69100 312,602 2404.22
COUNTY WIDE OPERATING 5.61500 312,602 1755.26
CITY OF NORTH MIAMI OPERATING 8.30000 312,602 2594.60
Non-Ad Valorem Assessments
Levying Authority Rate Footage/Units Amount
SANS SOUCI SECURITY GUARD 1167.1400 1.00 1167.14
Combined taxes and assessments (gross amount) for 2006 : $9381.26
Neighbors in The Miami Herald: a critique, by gimleteye
When I pulled the blue wrapper off Sunday’s paper, my memory was jogged by the top of the fold, front page paean to the Neighbors Section, 30 years old, “For the past three decades, Neighbors has chronicled the tidal wave of change that has transformed Miami-Dade.”
Not exactly.
The Neighbors section addresses “local” concerns to its subscribers in different sections of the county. Many of these concerns, especially related to the costs of growth, deserved to be featured for the entire subscriber base of the newspaper.
To say that Neighbors has “chronicled the tidal wave of change” is inaccurate.
The most relevant feature of Neighbors is its letters to the editor section. That’s where important stories go to be buried while acting “as a tiny release valve” to let off community steam.
My thoughts ran back to a blog I wrote nearly a year ago, “To know which stories The Miami Herald editor and publisher know are important, but not important enough to warrant tough coverage that would threaten advertisers, just read the letters to the editor section closely.”
Today’s story offers a revisionist history of The Miami Herald: as though the pain and turmoil of the rampant overdevelopment of the county was adequately chronicled in the Neighbor’s section.
Any subscriber who reads Florida newspapers closely, over the years, knows that The Miami Herald is not even close to the top of the hardest hitting newspapers in the state when it comes to reporting on the costs of growth: the St. Pete Times, Palm Beach Post, Naples Daily News, and even the Stuart News have been more courageous.
To suggest that the Neighbors section “chronicled” these stories is mostly wrong. Where it is true, the stories belonged in the A section for the entire readership, not Neighbors (and certainly not buried as they often area in the B section of the paper.)
The flaw is not the reporting or the work of the journalists. The flaw is the editorial vision of the paper that is chronically five or ten steps behind the “costs of growth” curve.
Today, that curve is catching us all up in a great wave of an economic recession. (for new blog readers, read our archive on The Miami Herald and housing crash.)
The complaints of citizens about the costs of growth, that often appeared only in the Neighbors letters to the editor section, were rarely used as the basis for real stories. They told you so.
On this blog, nearly a year ago, I wrote regarding the executive leadership of The Miami Herald: “Take some ownership! Put your reporters to work with regular and lengthy investigative reports that cut to the quick, instead of sitting on your hands with the “Neighbors” section covering your butts.”
It was true then, and it is true now.
Not exactly.
The Neighbors section addresses “local” concerns to its subscribers in different sections of the county. Many of these concerns, especially related to the costs of growth, deserved to be featured for the entire subscriber base of the newspaper.
To say that Neighbors has “chronicled the tidal wave of change” is inaccurate.
The most relevant feature of Neighbors is its letters to the editor section. That’s where important stories go to be buried while acting “as a tiny release valve” to let off community steam.
My thoughts ran back to a blog I wrote nearly a year ago, “To know which stories The Miami Herald editor and publisher know are important, but not important enough to warrant tough coverage that would threaten advertisers, just read the letters to the editor section closely.”
Today’s story offers a revisionist history of The Miami Herald: as though the pain and turmoil of the rampant overdevelopment of the county was adequately chronicled in the Neighbor’s section.
Any subscriber who reads Florida newspapers closely, over the years, knows that The Miami Herald is not even close to the top of the hardest hitting newspapers in the state when it comes to reporting on the costs of growth: the St. Pete Times, Palm Beach Post, Naples Daily News, and even the Stuart News have been more courageous.
To suggest that the Neighbors section “chronicled” these stories is mostly wrong. Where it is true, the stories belonged in the A section for the entire readership, not Neighbors (and certainly not buried as they often area in the B section of the paper.)
The flaw is not the reporting or the work of the journalists. The flaw is the editorial vision of the paper that is chronically five or ten steps behind the “costs of growth” curve.
Today, that curve is catching us all up in a great wave of an economic recession. (for new blog readers, read our archive on The Miami Herald and housing crash.)
The complaints of citizens about the costs of growth, that often appeared only in the Neighbors letters to the editor section, were rarely used as the basis for real stories. They told you so.
On this blog, nearly a year ago, I wrote regarding the executive leadership of The Miami Herald: “Take some ownership! Put your reporters to work with regular and lengthy investigative reports that cut to the quick, instead of sitting on your hands with the “Neighbors” section covering your butts.”
It was true then, and it is true now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)