RE:
News, “Witch Hunt?” published Aug. 16
Several months ago, members of the Surfside Commission were
presented with an investigative file from the Miami-Dade
County Commission on Ethics and Public Trust. It was an
investigation that the Surfside Administration had NOTHING
to do with. It involved the rebuilding of the house at 1308
Biscaya Drive (the residence of former Mayor Paul Novack).
The investigative file is a public record and is available
to anyone by contacting the COE. It is a very disturbing
report. Here are some quotes from the report: “A preliminary
inquiry suggested improper conduct by [Former Mayor] Novack
and [Former Town Manager] Rodriguez…. Federal Agents, after
reviewing bank records, concluded that payments from Novack
to the original contractor far exceeded the amount stated on
the building permit application.” Also, “The COE launched an
inquiry into whether Novack’s family residence was illegally
renovated. The inquiry seems to uphold this claim as Mr.
Novack’s original contractor told the COE that the project
cost for renovating the residence more than doubled the
amount stated on the permit. DERM officials … stated that
Mr. Novack’s permit appears to have been issued improperly
by town officials … Surfside building officials failed to
adhere to federal guidelines.” And then there is this,
“[Novack’s original contractor] said he believes Mr. Novack
may have defrauded the County Tax Collector or Property
Appraiser’s office because assessments are based on the
amounts stated on municipal permits. The appraiser’s office
is going to go by what’s on file with the city. Between 2002
and 2005 [Novack has] probably been enjoying a free ride.”
Wouldn’t all homeowners love to be treated like Mr. Novack
was? Check out this quote from the report, “[According to
the contractor], Surfside’s building inspector never
requested or required a Certificate of Elevation. [Former
Mayor] Novack told [the Contractor] that [Novack] would
obtain the permits from the City. It would have cost at
least $200,000 had Novack attempted to comply [with the
law].”
Remember — the report was not written by anyone connected in
any way to Surfside. It was investigated and written by an
independent outside agency.
It
is, of course, both legally and morally wrong to base
homeowner violation enforcement on who the violator is.
Quite frankly, the next homeowner that receives a homeowner
citation, be it for chain link fence, landscaping, roof,
windows, doors, paint, electrical, etc. should appear in
front of the Surfside Commission and ask why they were
selected for enforcement action and the home at 1308 Biscaya
was not. The rules appear to be different if you are a
former elected official. That should NOT be tolerated. Worse
yet, if the COE is accurate, then the taxpayers of Surfside
are losing thousands of dollars every year and YOUR
commission is knowingly ignoring it. Wouldn’t it be nice if
we could all have our homes appraised artificially low and
if we could count on the commission to turn a blind eye when
they were presented with a credible report of the
wrongdoing?
Unfortunately, if you are not a rich or powerful former
elected official, I don't think you would be allowed to get
away with it. I voted to move forward even though Mr. Novack
was very helpful to me after Hurricane Wilma and even though
property that I own would be directly and adversely impacted
by bringing 1308 Biscaya into compliance. The real issue is
ensuring that all of us are treated equally by our local
government.
Don't be fooled by the myriad of spin control excuses you
will hear from elected officials:
“Too
expensive.” Not true. Bringing the property into compliance
would stop the loss of thousands of dollars per year in
underpayment of taxes. Doing nothing is MUCH more expensive
in the long run. Any legal action would also probably
recover back taxes and legal fees.
“Witch hunt.” Not true. This investigation was conducted by
an outside agency and was commenced and completed during the
prior administration. The report was dropped onto the
current commission’s lap. Turning a blind eye and blaming a
witch hunt is disingenuous and not credible.
“Selective enforcement.” Not true. In fact the truth is the
exact opposite. Turning a blind eye to a likely violation
based on the stature of the violator is the very definition
of selective enforcement. Proceeding, as I voted to do,
would be uniform enforcement.
“Pandora’s box.” Not true. In fact, once again the opposite
is true. Basing enforcement on who the violator happens to
be rips the lid off of Pandora’s box. Everyone knows that if
the same report named Mr. Jones or Mr. Martinez or Mr.
Stein, etc. instead of Mayor Novack your elected officials
would be preaching the importance of enforcing the law.
Feeling the hypocrisy yet? If it was your house, you would
be forced into compliance without even a second thought.
Does any Surfside homeowner think that the town would
knowingly allow them to underpay their taxes every year? As
troubling as it is, the truth is just as you probably
suspected: The decision not to proceed was based on politics
pure and simple. The people of Surfside expect and deserve
better. Kudos to Commissioner Levine for doing the right
thing. I pledge to continue doing what is right regardless
of the relentless attacks on me by politically powerful
elements.
Vice
Mayor Howard S. Weinberg
Surfside
Forward
With the Revolution: Maybe Now We Will Have a Board That
Will Respect Our Wishes
Regarding
“The Shorecrest Revolution” [published Aug. 16], according
to my observation, it was Ms. Warren that incited and
enraged the attendees by attempting to discredit and/or
insult anyone who spoke out at the homeowners’ meeting. And,
never, at any time, was there a need for Ms. Mascarenas to
call the police. Members were simply venting long-held
frustrations and disappointment with Ms. Warren’s lack of
leadership and direction.
Ms. Warren,
by the way, was never “elected” to her position; she ran
unopposed three years running. The previous board offered
her the position based on the fact that she was an
intelligent woman with knowledge of government operations
and politically connected. They felt that she had the
potential to improve the quality of life for all
Shorecresters. Unfortunately, she failed on that promise.
Not only were there no treasurer’s reports, minutes of
meetings or written agendas; membership dwindled and most
board members were neither seen nor heard from. Any requests
from members went unanswered.
While Ms.
Warren may have the support of some commercial property
owners along Biscayne Boulevard and 79th Street to allow
zoning for eight- to 12-story buildings, she has little to
no support from any homeowners, nor has there ever been a
poll taken by the UEMC that I know of. It doesn’t take a
rocket scientist to surmise that no one would want huge
towers looming over their single-family homes. And Lincoln
Road seems to be doing quite well at revitalizing its
commercial corridor at three stories. And, contrary to her
statement that it was Marc Sarnoff who instituted the
35-foot height limit, I believe it was the residents of the
Upper Eastside, many years ago, that decided on that zoning
issue at local charrettes.
I am happy
to report that, at this time, enough individuals have
volunteered to create a new board and, hopefully, Shorecrest
will move forward to, once again, become a cohesive
community ready to prosper and grow under new leadership.
Best
Regards,
Jack Spirk
Miami
Forward With the Revolution: and We Are a Nice Community, by
the Way
Hi
Erik,
Thank you for doing the in-depth story on the Shorecrest
showdown [“The Shorecrest Revolution,” published Aug. 16]. I
had to read it twice because the first time the litany of
lies from Ms. Warren just jumped out at me. One example:
When was she ever elected? NEVER! She ran unopposed from the
start.
It
was clever of you to segue into the “revolution” by using
Commissioner Marc Sarnoff’s talk on neighbors being less
than neighborly, but I was dismayed because it set us up to
look like feuding neighbors when nothing could be further
from the truth.
We’re a close-knit community that came together that night
with a common purpose, to vote her out and reclaim our
neighborhood association. The shouting ensued because she
would not let us move forward with our motion to take the
vote and proceeded to demand explanations and in other ways
provoke comments and reactions from the members. For what?
Just to prevent the voting from taking place. As you stated
in the article, she went so far as to say, “This meeting is
adjourned.” Well, we had unfinished business on the floor
and were trying to take a vote. That's when people became
irate.
That
there was a threat of physical harm is all rubbish. For the
police, who as regular guests at our HOA meetings had just
left by the way, to have been called would have been a
perfect diversion to derail the motion to remove her. Her
so-called “normal” members, a few at best, probably left
because they didn’t want to stand up in front of her and be
counted. We had intended on a paper ballot vote before that
became impractical.
You
know I’m just venting. I guess that for someone like Allyson
to just graciously accept that her dis-services are no
longer needed is not to be expected.
Oh,
that photo that appears online of her shaking a finger at
the commissioner speaks volumes. Too bad it didn’t fit in
the paper.
Thanks so much for getting all my quotes in and straight and
for fairly representing our issue with the PAST president.
Have
a great weekend.
Ginger Vela
Miami
Sign of
the Times: How ‘Affordable Housing’ Forces the Poor out of
Miami
SunPost
Editor:
In regard
to your editorial about the Miami-Dade County leaders’
stance on the HUD investigation: “Yes, there have been some
improvements made at the Miami-Dade Housing Agency. But so
what?” [Editorial, “County Officials Should Cooperate With
HUD,” published Aug. 9.] You left out an extremely important
“so what.”
How can
Miami-Dade administrators and elected officials approve
using our state and federal dollars to build out of scale,
affordable housing high-rise buildings right next to
single-family homes, in violation of Miami’s zoning
ordinance and perhaps Miami-Dade zoning ordinances? Does not
any leader at the city or county read any papers to know
that organized neighborhoods have been screaming about the
construction of market rate, private inflation-generating
monster condos and mixed-use buildings for at least four
years?!
This is
about much more than the added burden of traffic congestion
and sun being blocked by out of scale buildings next to
existing one- and two-story single or multifamily
buildings. This practice must stop now as it is forcing
businesses and families from their livelihoods and homes
through out of scale tax increases.
Earlier
this month, I attended the groundbreaking of an 18-story
building on 79th Street just east of Northeast Second Avenue
to serve some category of low-income individuals, subsidized
by HUD and state dollars. The site of the new building was
worse than I expected as this second high-rise is going up
directly across the street from one- and two-
story apartment buildings, whereas the first high-rise is
about 200 feet away.
As valet
runners parked the suited attendees’ vehicles (a curbside
spot was reserved for Mayor Manny Diaz and his PR film
crew), I spoke to poor African-American and Haitian-origin
residents over the fence, as they wanted to know what was
happening.
One of the
signs I was holding that day [equating Miami’s development
to that of Communist China] I think says it all. In China, I
presume without much public input, nor laws, they just tear
out entire sections of a city and rebuild from the ground
up. Heaven only knows what happens to the lives of the
disrupted individuals. In Miami, under the zoning changes
being blessed by the majority of Miami and Miami-Dade
elected leaders who defer to the district commissioner, the
same thing is happening, but the real dirty details are
being left to the tax assessor, who is very effective in
causing much pain in two to three years.
In
Communist China and here in Miami the process of disrupting
livelihoods is wrong and here in Miami illegal, if someone
complains. Neighborhoods which are better educated and have
the time and dollars to fight this injustice, have made
progress recently in decisions which favored Morningside
residents and most recently Miami River business and
residential interests who opposed developers and the Diaz
machine, which keeps approving this high-rise crap outside
our downtown.
But back to
the groundbreaking party. When the ceremony finished I had
the opportunity to speak with many social service-type
workers who hoped to place clients in these HUD and
Florida subsidized buildings. They seemed to have no idea of
the harm this out of scale building would have on the entire
area. I suggested that three or four smaller buildings in
the area instead of the high-rise would not only serve their
clients better but the neighborhood businesses and landlords
would not be hit with such massive tax increases as property
values would moderate.
This week I
called Rep. Kendrick Meek in his D.C. office. I asked the
staff person, who asked me to not use his name, in light of
the recent court findings on out of scale buildings and the
HUD takeover in Miami-Dade, if the congressman is going
to speak up for the poor people in his district who barely
have dollars to put food on the table, much less the
tremendous time and dollars it takes to constantly beg
the Miami Commission to follow its zoning laws. We hope
Congressman Meek can help deliver some justice now as people
and businesses in many neighborhoods of Miami and Miami-Dade
County need relief from this intentionally inflicted rapid
gentrification and yes, HUD needs to dig and deliver housing
people need, which will be welcome in neighborhoods as long
as it heals more than it hurts.
Steve Hagen
Miami
The Bigger They Are, the Harder They Fall
Angie:
Hi, I just read your article online and I must say that the
whole situation is quite disturbing [“Toxic Tee-Off,”
published Aug. 9]. I just don't understand why is it that so
many hours are spent to kill grass with poisonous chemicals
when they could remove it mechanically?!? Not only is it
costly and unnecessary but, as you can see, it is extremely
dangerous.
And
this is just the beginning. People get sick and that’s very
visible, but there’s a lot more that we don’t see. Water
doesn’t just wash Roundup away and if it does, where is it
going? What about the animals that live on the golf course
and are breathing and drinking the chemicals? What about the
effects not visible right away on the people that not only
live by the golf course but drive by every day, unaware of
the spraying?
I am
very much against ANYTHING Monsanto does and stands for. It
is an evil corrupt company well-known for releasing products
and technology into the environment that are not only
harmful but that could potentially disrupt the world’s
ecosystem FOREVER.
Unfortunately, they are extremely powerful and have control
of things such an establishment should never be allowed to
control (like the EPA, the FDA, our food supply).
I am
very pleased that the media would take interest in such
important issues in a time where we obviously cannot trust
the authorities that tell us “it’s OK” to spray poison all
over the place. And to remove grass?!? It just goes beyond
my comprehension, the irresponsibility of it all.
Spraying
POISON in an urban area is INSANE. It doesn’t just kill the
grass. It kills EVERYTHING.
And about
Renee Kohn’s statement (“I
know how hopeless it is,” she said. “How many people do you
know who were made sick on medications that were prescribed
to them, and they can’t make a case? You can’t win.”),
that’s exactly what those companies want us to think. They
want us to feel hopeless, powerless. But we can win, by
being informed and having an opinion and a voice. Sure,
there are some things that are beyond our control, but there
are many things we can do to change the world. Boycott these
companies, make noise. It is the choices that we make every
day that make a difference. One day at a time.
Daniella
Vaclavik
Miami Beach
The Snow Queen: More Than Just a ‘Dinner Party,’ It Was
Grounds to Revoke a Special Permit
I’ve been pondering for
more than a week as to how to respond to Ben Torter’s
article in the Aug. 9 SunPost, “Snow Queen Showdown.”
While well-written, it was not the whole story, and one very
important statement was erroneous.
I tried to sort out all
the issues concerning residents’ problems with the
restaurant Table 8 — part of the Regent South Beach
condo/hotel — a restaurant that appears to have morphed into
a nightclub right smack in the middle of a densely populated
residential area, North Ocean Drive, but it evolved into a
discussion too long for anyone but those most immediately
involved.
So, bear with me while I
pull out the major points in these issues.
First there is the
variance order, granted 3/3/06, 18 months ago, by the city’s
Zoning Board of Adjustment, with seven conditions that had
to be met by the Regent South Beach/Table 8. Residents
argued that their noncompliance warranted revocation because
three key conditions had not been met: noise abatement
(Condition #1 – which was NOT described in Mr. Torter’s
article and the major error in the piece); landscaping/sound
screens between buildings (Condition #2); and the change
from an open bar setting to a nightclub (Condition #6).
Second is the failure of
the Regent South Beach/Table 8 to initiate permits
mitigating Condition #2. They said permits were in the
pipeline; the city told me a week before the hearing that,
in 18 months, no such permits had ever been filed. (That a
permit, according to Mr. Torter’s article, has finally been
filed is news to us and we’d like to see the proof.)
Third is that Table 8, by
having a nightclub party on the first of August, made,
according to Condition #6, the entire variance order
“null and void.”
We showed a video that
was at odds with the Regent’s claim this was “a dinner
party.” It was a nightclub, hosted by the premier
nightclub impresarios in South Beach. That Table 8 had the
chutzpah to hold this event two days before the
hearing indicated supreme self-confidence that no one there
was taking this variance order seriously.
Over and above all of
this, however, and infinitely more important, is the
anti-resident/anti-community/pro-business stance of the
city’s Zoning Board. They were openly hostile to residents
at this hearing and so misinformed about the city’s noise
ordinance it took our breath away. (One member didn’t even
know the city had a noise ordinance.) Another member took it
upon himself to shout at a resident trying to correct
misinformation and then made a scathing, ad hominem
remark to her. That there was no effort to recognize the
highly residential nature of this neighborhood — it is
not the cabaret district! — was significant.
No citizen of Miami Beach
needs to take valuable time away from home and work to come
to city hearings to be abused, nor to be cut off at this
same public hearing by its chair while the other side is
given extra time to speak. Rudeness and arrogance permeated
this hearing.
Something is rotten with
this system and it needs to be fixed. Why members of a
powerful board like zoning lack knowledge essential to make
important decisions indicates a major problem with the
appointment of individuals to city boards. Why Code
Compliance, empowered to carry out the mandates of the city
noise ordinance, fails to do so, time after time, is also a
major problem, making a mockery out of this hard-fought
ruling. And, why residents aren’t given fair hearings and
the time to present a case is shocking.
Jo Manning
President, Drake
Condominium Association
Miami Beach
