PB Bonus Post: Just in case…
SDM commenters have been sharing a rumor about the shade session that led to the Shores at Palmetto Bay, LLC settlement. Ultimately, we won’t know if the rumor is true until the transcript is forcibly taken from Mayor Stanczyk’s iron grip.
But just in case the rumor is true, let’s establish Mrs. Stanczyk’s statement on the settlement as reported in the Miami Herald:
“I believe that the village would have prevailed” in court, said Stanczyk. “I believe that the original ruling that the council made was correct. … We had no choice with an incomplete application to go forward, and he had other questions to answer, not huge questions, but questions nonetheless. With either vote they would get their development.* There wasn’t any reason to settle.”
Close readers of this blog may recall this statement published here:
SDM Code Breaker: The council met in a shade session before the May 20th special meeting was called. While the council cannot vote at shade sessions, they clearly can have their temperatures taken regarding whether they want to continue to fight or accept a settlement. Logic dictates that at least three council members decided to terminate the lawsuit, which also probably means that at least three of them believe that cutting the village’s losses will be better than risking an expensive judgment. So, SDM will wager that Shores will get their votes and the project will go forward.
Hypothetically speaking, if a member of the council were to indicate in the shade session transcript that he or she supported settlement but later voted against settling when the matter came before the public at a council meeting, what might SDM call such an act? Hmmm…
*SDM placed an asterisk at the end of that sentence because we cannot understand what the heck it means. Ideas?