South Dade Matters

Looking at the World South of Miami: Palmetto Bay, Cutler Bay, Pinecrest, South Miami and Miami-Dade County.

Tag: Howard Tendrich

May 7, 2013

PB: Who is Shelley Stanczyk?

Watching last night’s Village Council meeting struck SDM as surreal. SDM was trying to imagine what was going on in the minds of Mayor Stanczyk’s colleagues and we decided they must be asking “who is this lady sitting next to me?”

Vice Mayor John Dubois must sit there steaming; he certainly looks like it. The woman sitting next to him created a fictitious persona and website to accuse him of a crime! Mayor Stanczyk’s website posted copies of some nasty fliers that claimed Mr. Dubois “illegally” cut down mangroves on his property. When one claims in writing that another person did an illegal act, that can constitute defamation under Florida law.

Here at SDM, we vet every post and comment to make sure we don’t cross the line. And, we will take down material that amounts to defamation – if we agree – when a damaged party makes a request.

Mrs. Stanczyk’s claims against Dubois are particularly troubling because they are so uninformed. The fact is that trimming mangroves is a regulated, legal activity subject to interpretation by the county. If the county determines that mangroves were trimmed in violation of state law, then they can impose fines and ultimately sue to collect outstanding monies due.

For any person who has ever faced an enforcement action, you know that the government isn’t always right. Mr. Dubois finds himself under fire from the county and eventually will come to some resolution with them. Does that make his conduct illegal? Not necessarily and Mrs. Stanczyk knows better. In fact, SDM doubts she’d have made the accusation if she thought it would catch up to her. How’s that for political courage?

SDM Wonders: How does Mr. Dubois sit on that dais next to someone who seems to think that no act in a political campaign is beneath her? SDM wrote last month that village politics is not a war…unless you are the Mayor, apparently.

Speaking of code enforcement violations, how do you think former Council Member Howard Tendrich feels after re-reading the website now knowing that his one-time ally wrote that “he’s the anonymous caller if you ever have the code officer visit you and he tells you a complaint was made.”

Really Mme. Mayor? Your statement is either an outrageous lie or a truth without any substantive evidence in the record. If the latter is the case, then produce the inside information and the staffer who is leaking it because we are told that code enforcement violations are called in anonymously.  If the former is the case, you have no shame.

SDM Wonders: How do the Mayor’s allies on the council and in the community view this politician now that they know what she’s been up to? She seems to have no compunction to say anything once an ally disagrees with her. Better watch your back Council Members Lindsay and Schaffer; you may be next on her hit list.

SDM Says: We understand there is another shoe to drop in this scandal – perhaps several more, in fact. Therefore, we have no choice here at SDM but to wait and watch as this wonderful little experiment in self-government is smeared by a forgettable, small-minded political flyweight. The next election can’t come soon enough.

Final note to our readers: For those of you out there saying, but SDM, you anonymously blog and say some pretty tough – sometimes nasty – things about the village people. What gives you the right to judge the Mayor? Here’s the difference between SDM and the Mayor: SDM is written by outsiders. No one is elected to diddly squat. Even if you don’t believe it, SDM gains nothing by writing this blog except the satisfaction that another perspective is being published. Someone has to point out the other side of the village story and that’s what we try to do here. No defamation…just carefully researched facts and opinions derived from our best efforts at understanding what is going on.

14 comments
December 3, 2012

PB: Council Meeting Quick Bites

New Village Council Members

Tonight’s village council meeting will see two new faces sworn-in: John Dubois as Vice Mayor and Tim E. Schaffer as Councilman.

It’s not clear how the village’s political landscape will change given that Mayor Shelley Stacnzyk is joined at the hip with Councilwoman Joan Lindsay. These two dragged former Vice Mayor Brian Pariser into a series of difficult votes on controversial subjects. SDM believes Mr. Pariser was retired from office precisely because he failed to distinguish himself from Stanczyk and Lindsay.

On the other side sits Patrick Fiore (who is making noises about running against Stanczyk in two years). Dubois benefited from Fiore’s support in the past election, though Fiore couldn’t pull his candidate Jim Araiza across the finish line. Therefore, Palmetto Bay’s second new face is the unknown Schaffer. (SDM calls him Marathon Man because of his fuel purchasing habits.)

So what exactly can residents expect from this new council? SDM suspects Mr. Fiore and Mr. Dubois will work in tandem and that Stanczyk and Lindsay will stay in their camp. This will leave Schaffer to either join the Amigos, to stand independently, or to join the Fiore-Dubois group. Schaffer owes his election to the Stanczyk-Lindsay operation so early money says he will step directly into Brian Pariser’s empty loafers.

SDM Says: If Schaffer becomes the third Amigo, nothing much will change in Palmetto Bay. Property owners will be under the gun of the crazies that support Stanczyk and Lindsay and village government will continue on its intrusive, hyper-regulatory course. If the Marathon Man breaks from the Amigos, residents might see a more reasonable government…and Schaffer will grow a target on his back from the SOPs and CCOCI folks.

Decorum Rising

In addition to swearing-in the new members, the village council will take up the crucial issue of reading the decorum statement before each meeting starts. If adopted, the decorum statement will be read as the second order of business, right before the Mayor starts handing out her proclamations and honors every local sports team that wins anything.

SDM Wonders: The decorum statement is pretty straightforward but it is incomplete because it is not addressed to the council itself. From SDM’s perspective, most of the indecorous behavior at village meetings comes from the dais and from the spouses of those on the dais sitting in the back of the chamber. Let’s hope the council listens to the decorum statement and applies it to themselves.

Misapplying the First Amendment

The minutes of the November 5, 2012 council meeting (Item 12A) contains an interesting misapplication of this provision of the U.S. Constitution:  ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Village Attorney Eve Boutsis’ was asked a question about the village’s sponsorship ordinance:

Councilman Tendrich noted that on page 4 of 9, line 36, to state that an illegal business would be prohibited from advertising seems obvious. He asked about churches that volunteer in Palmetto Bay.

Attorney Boutsis explained that this is a matter of separation of church and state. (Emphasis added by SDM.)

 SDM Wonders: How would a church’s purchase of a sponsorship of a village event “establish a religion” or “prohibit the exercise” of a religion? Of course, it wouldn’t and Ms. Boutsis should know this. In fact, SDM would argue that by singling out churches, the village is actually preemptively prohibiting speech based on content, which is a constitutional no-no.

SDM Says: Most village churches by now have zero interest in supporting the village’s events, but Palmetto Bay leaders cannot say with a straight face that they support local churches while at the same time they limit their freedom of speech.

 

6 comments
November 15, 2012

PB: Palmer’s Latest News – Positive & Perplexing

SDM sometimes wakes up wondering how the universe functions, especially after reading this momentous article in the Miami Herald:

Court rules Palmetto Bay is not on the hook for Palmer Trinity’s legal fees

By Howard Cohen
The Miami Herald

The Miami-Dade Circuit Court has ruled in favor of Palmetto Bay, which argued it does not have to pay the legal fees connected with its longstanding battle over Palmer Trinity School’s expansion.On Nov. 5 the court denied the school’s request that the village pay its attorney’s fees and costs, which could have totaled more than $300,000.

In July, the school won the right to expand to 1,150 students and, with that victory, filed a motion to collect legal fees.

In August, Palmetto Bay petitioned the Third District Court of Appeal to reconsider its July order that the village pay the school’s attorney’s fees. In September, the appeals court reversed its earlier ruling that the village pay the school’s legal fees. The case went back to the Circuit Court, which ruled in favor of the village.

“It’s over. The appeal is over and hopefully everyone can get back to doing what we do,’’ says Palmetto Bay Village Attorney Eve Boutsis. “The city continues to be a city and Palmer Trinity already has its development order and will do what it has to do and hopefully everyone can move on,” Boutsis said Tuesday afternoon. “This was a great result for the village and it ends this cleanly.” (Emphasis added by SDM.)

[SDM Question: Does this mean the transcripts of the shade sessions will be released now?]

Stan Price, the attorney for Palmer Trinity, commented on Wednesday. “We’re extremely disappointed. We don’t know what you have to do to prove bad faith on behalf of government entities before you can get fees, but we’ll continue with the litigation and hopefully, at the end of the day, we’ll be totally vindicated.”

The village still faces a civil suit filed by the school, which contends it’s owed more than $12 million in lost tuition and other revenue as a result of the suits. The village is fighting those charges.

Palmetto Bay Mayor Shelley Stanczyk has faced criticism from some residents who formed a political action committee to have her recalled next year along with Council Member Joan Lindsay for their decisions to fight the school. The Recall Palmetto Bay group has also worked against re-electing Vice Mayor Brian Pariser, who faces a runoff on Nov. 20.

The group is upset because the three council members continued to lead the fight against Palmer, after the court ruled against the village. The village has spent more than $600,000 in legal fees since the dispute began in 2006.

The recall group used the Third District Court of Appeal’s strongly worded language against the village as ammunition. The appeals court ruled that Palmetto Bay acted with “willful disobedience” regarding previous judicial instructions. The court had also noted the village’s appeals were “an exercise in superfluousness and futility.”

Village supporters strongly disagreed with the unusually harsh language. The battle has divided the village during the recent Nov. 6th elections. Pariser finished a close second and faces challenger John DuBois in the runoff. Council member Howard Tendrich, who disagreed with Pariser, Stanczyk and Lindsay, lost his bid for reelection. His challengers, Tim Schaffer and Jim Araiza, will be in the runoff.

On Tuesday, Stanczyk expressed satisfaction with the latest court decision. The court did not elaborate on its decision, saying only the motion was denied.

“This ruling continues the statement that the village has not acted with willful disobedience and that our actions were not frivolous,” she said.

First off, SDM wants to say bravo to the village’s legal team for protecting the taxpayers from this cost. Having to pay $300,000 to Palmer would have been a blow to the village, though a manageable one. Palmetto Bay’s lawyers lost the case, but won a critical skirmish over fees and costs and Ms. Boutsis deserves praise for achieving this result.

But the result also sparks questions in SDM’s tiny mind. For example, why are Palmer’s legal fees and costs half the amount the village has incurred in defending the lawsuit? If the village’s financial exposure was $300,000, why didn’t someone try to settle the matter before we incurred more than half-a-million in legal fees and costs on our end?

Perhaps more importantly, did it make sense for the village to spend tax dollars and to drag Palmer through all of this torment over a net difference of 250 children spread over more than 50 acres of land? Earlier posts noted that village staff believed Palmer could have added some 2,000 students based on the code.  (Staff essentially talked them down to their 1,150 recommendation.) Was this result worth all the time and money spent by the village on this lawsuit?

SDM also wonders why the village elders and legal counsel never discussed the dimensions of the village’s financial exposure with residents. With all due respect, the calls for settlement that have emanated from SDM and the Palmetto Bay News for at least 18 months appear well-founded. While the village attorney deserves kudos for this victory, her obsession with keeping the rest of us in the dark looks to have extended this lawsuit. Inevitably SDM must ask: who benefits when a lawsuit drags on?

Finally, SDM wonders how the Mayor can be so clueless. Seriously, does she not understand that the village lost the lawsuit? That the court said specifically that the village’s behavior in the Palmer litigation amounted to “willful disobedience of the court’s instructions”? [Read more at Palmer Litigation: An Exercise in Superfluousness and Futility.] Frankly, SDM cannot figure out why the village lets her speak to reporters.

SDM Wonders: How does Ms. Boutsis conclude that “[t]his was a great result for the village and it ends this cleanly” given the following:

  • The village lost the underlying suit and spent a small fortune defending its position.
  • Palmetto Bay was slapped with a humiliating and harshly worded order questioning the village’s motives. (Judges are human, too, they talk about cases to one another. SDM cannot see how this case was good for Palmetto Bay’s reputation.)
  • One of the village’s most important institutions (and one of its largest employers, too) has been unable to expand for a minimum of four years. (How many kids missed out on a Palmer education, Mme. “Education” Mayor?)
  • Palmer still has a lawsuit pending on damages.
  • A once tranquil village finds itself divided.

SDM Says: This not so great and not so clean “victory” rings a little hollow. Do the candidates for Vice Mayor and District 2 agree with Ms. Boutsis?

4 comments
November 8, 2012

PB: Guest Post – A Gentlemanly Reply

After a minor contretemps broke out over some misguided and politically harmful comments by a supporter, Vice Mayor candidate John Dubois proves he’s a gentleman:

Dear SDM and blog readers,

This is the first time since I’ve been a candidate that I have felt compelled to respond to any media or online comments because I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and I believe strongly in freedom of speech. However, in this instance there is an implication that David Zisman speaks for me or represents my campaign and I that is not the case.

David Zisman is a good personal friend of mine, however, we have very different approaches and points of view on politics. Furthermore, I do not and cannot control what comes out of his mouth.

Howard Tendrich and Karyn Cunningham are two exceptionally nice people that, like Jim Araiza, Tim Schaffer, Brian [Pariser] and me, have the right and should be encouraged to engage in the political process by running for office. In the race for Vice Mayor, Karyn ran an excellent campaign with integrity, focus, and very hard work. If Karyn had a few more weeks campaigning, I believe she would have closed the gap and been in the runoff. I think she will be good addition to our council in the future and I would not only encourage her but also support her in such endeavors.

Our former mayor [Eugene Flinn] also has as much right as any of the rest of us to engage in the process. Blaming him for causing a runoff is wrong. I only blame myself for not being able to break 50% to avoid a runoff. Characterizing the two candidates that did not make the runoff as going down in a blaze is derogatory and uncalled for.

Best regards,

John Dubois

See how that works? Don’t throw your friend under the bus and be generous to your opponents and colleagues. SDM feels proud to support Mr. Dubois and hopes former Mayor Flinn and Ms. Cunningham endorse him, too.

SDM Says: Come together…right now…

16 comments
November 8, 2012

PB: How To Lose An Election

No, SDM is not going to talk about the national race. This blog is local and a very promising local campaign to unseat an unpopular incumbent is taking steps to lose the runoff.

Yesterday, a gentleman named David Zisman commented on PB: Post election review. Here is the core of his politically foolish statement:

Thank you SDM for coming to the correct analysis of who to support in the runoff. There should not even have been a runoff except for the efforts of our not so endearing X Mayor. His two candidates went down in a blaze. Howard had already decided not to run back in August when our X Mayor convinced him he would win outright. As for Karyn, she seems nice enough but the lingering distaste for the X Mayor lives on long after his stunning defeat against Lynda Bell. Karyn, next time you run for something, stay far away from Gene Flinn. I can only imagine the support that he promised you and I assume he delivered you nothing.

So Gene Flinn will cost Palmetto Bay about $50,000 for the runoff election that “Never Should Have Been.” Well that’s still cheaper then having him in office.

Now, Mr. Zisman has a right to his opinion, which SDM will show to be both dead wrong and outrageously presumptuous at the same time. But first, my dear readers must understand that Mr. Zisman advertises himself as a John Dubois guy, which SDM takes to mean that he is an integral component of Dubois’s campaign and perhaps even a spokesman for him.

If so, Mr. Dubois’s got some splaining to do.

First, the idea that some self-anointed group of residents would essentially try to “negotiate” Councilman Tendrich out of running for re-election so that their candidate would have a clearer path is anathema to SDM. Who are they to tell him not to run? This is the precise behavior SDM finds repugnant in the Three Amigos.

Second, SDM happens to like and support Mr. Tendrich and thinks you should have kept your guy out of the race, which might have thereby avoided a runoff.  See how ridiculous you sound when the facts are flipped?

Third, you can cajole and lobby people not to run for office, but your doing so makes your candidate look weak. SDM happens to think Mr. Dubois will do an excellent job and has no trouble supporting him enthusiastically. SDM also believes Mr. Dubois can and must win without the machinations of a few Machiavelli wannabes.

Fourth, why, when the runoff will be so close, would you go out and insult a two-term former Mayor and a candidate who just took about a third of the vote? (BTW, that ain’t going “down in a blaze,” sir.)

SDM Says: Mr. Zisman, you have a constitutional right to express your antipathy toward Mr. Flinn, but you should remember the ancient political maxim – the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Mr. Flinn has repeatedly criticized Vice Mayor Pariser, making him a logical addition to the Dubois team.

SDM Wonders: Why are you so hellbent on alienating Mr. Flinn and Ms. Cunningham at the moment Mr. Dubois needs them most?

SDM’s Free Advice to Mr. Dubois: You need Mr. Flinn and Ms. Cunningham to support you and to ask, beg and cajole their supporters to choose you. Your margin of victory does not warrant a touchdown dance and declaration of victory at halftime. Distance yourself now from these comments. SDM will publish your statement should you wish to avail yourself of this forum.

9 comments
November 7, 2012

PB: Post Election Review

Palmetto Bay voters cast about 1,500 more ballots in 2012 than they did in 2010 but about 2,500 fewer than in 2008. These results are consistent with the overall county turnout. SDM is convinced that the lengthy ballot combined with fewer early voting days and lessened voter intensity explain the delta. It will be interesting to see how the pundits and political scientists dissect these numbers.

Ready for some runoffs?

Village voters split their vote in thirds, setting up runoffs between Jim Araiza and Tim Schaffer for District 2 and John Dubois and Brian Pariser for Vice Mayor.

Howard Tendrich’s homespun campaign just couldn’t compete in the intensive environment of a Presidential year. SDM will miss Howard’s gentlemanly ways as much as his humanity. You did a good job for Palmetto Bay, Howard, thank you for your service.

SDM was very impressed by Karyn Cunningham. She came into the race late and really had no name identification in Palmetto Bay, but her showing was impressive nonetheless. SDM hopes she will seek office again.

The runoff will be held on November 20th and it will be a totally different race. Only 30% of voters participated in the 2010 runoff so SDM figures that fewer than 5,000 votes will determine the composition of your village council.

For SDM, the choice is clear: Dubois and Araiza

Now that SDM-favorite Tendrich has been retired, the only rational choice is to vote for John Dubois as Vice Mayor and Jim Araiza as Councilman in District 2. Both need to win to turn back the Three Amigos and their handlers.

Dubois narrowly bested Pariser yesterday. Cunningham’s unusual success probably kept Dubois from winning outright.

Araiza and Schaffer were separated by 52 votes or .55%. That’s close people, but the general election results are immaterial now.

Because only about a third of voters will vote on the 20th, your vote counts even more in a runoff. You can be damn sure the SOPs and the CCOCIers will show up.

Charter amendments pass, except for one

All the silly charter amendments passed, except for one that SDM took particular issue with: Interacting with Administration. This amendment would allow village politicians to circumvent the manager and pressure individual employees. Bravo, Palmetto Bay, for rejecting it.

The term limit amendment passed, which means that Mayor Shelley Stanczyk can now seek re-election. SDM wishes to thank the Blog deities for this gift. SDM promises not to waste this unexpected munificence.

SDM Says: It may be up to village voters to limit Stanczyk’s term.

13 comments
October 24, 2012

PB: Pre-election delusions and admissions

An upcoming Miami Herald report on the Palmetto Bay elections contains some interesting comments from the candidates. SDM can’t resist the urge to comment on a couple of them.

Pariser: delusional as usual

The related Neighborhood Protection charter amendment language on the ballot creates a provision in which single-family, residential-zoned properties shall be protected from the negative impacts of adjacent or nearby non-single-family-residential and requires four affirmative votes of the council to approve a zoning change, conditional use, or special exception in any single-family-residential district.

“This is nothing unusual,” [Vice Mayor] Pariser said. “These are not new concepts. This tinkers with noise and dirt and dust so everyone has a standardized pattern.”

Nothing unusual? The charter amendment is a gigantic and legally questionable departure from current law, which in Palmetto Bay is already abnormally and unnecessarily restrictive. You don’t have to believe SDM, just read what the village attorney says about it:

  • The City [of St. Pete Beach, which adopted an analogous provision] spent more on legal fees than its annual budget.
  • To date, the proponent[s] of the ballot language, Mrs. Tellam and Mr. Gibbs, the land use lawyer working with Mrs. Tellam, have not provided any language from a charter that is similar to the language being proposed for insertion in the Village’s charter.
  • [The charter amendment] could result in a substantial [Bert J. Harris Act] damage claim being filed against the Village.
  • City of Hollywood was subject to a RLUIPA claim and settled the litigation for over $4,000,000.

Now, to be fair, Mr. Pariser’s quote may be referring to the hollow neighborhood protection ordinance. SDM has already gone over this subject in PB: NPO impressions. In one sense, Pariser is correct. After months of over-the-top rhetoric from NPO acolytes, the oridinance(s) turned out to be a misfire. Nevertheless, Howard Tendrich sees the NPO as more than “tinkering”:

“This is a big challenge we need to fight,” he said, citing some elements as overly restrictive, such as a noise ordinance that forbids outside speakers after 2 p.m. on Saturday and no outside speakers on Sundays at events such as ballgames. “I think this is wacko.” (Emphasis added by SDM.)

…

Schaffer to Palmetto Bay Residents: Settle Down!

According to the Herald, Fourth Amigo Tim Schaffer did his best impression of Kevin Bacon in Animal House:

“Let’s settle down. I’ve seen what seems to be a battle between guys who lost in 2010 and those who won in 2010 and those related to those on both sides. [We] seem to be on a more destructive path than constructive path. I am 100 percent focusing on the residents of Palmetto Bay and listening to what they want.”

SDM will pay $20 to anyone who has seen Bacon and F.A. Schaffer in the same room.

Seriously, the F.A. Schaffer actually makes a good point. Since the 2010 election, the village is on a more destructive path. If you doubt SDM, just look at the village checkbook.

SDM Says: F.A. Schaffer will merely add to the disaster this village has suffered through for the past two years. Vote for Howard Tendrich and against the “neighborhood protection” charter amendment.

12 comments
October 24, 2012

PB: Guest Post by David Singer

Mr. Singer wrote this comment to an SDM post. SDM liked it so much that it rates its own post. Without further ado:

The Village of Palmetto Bay’s direction and future is at stake on November 6th.

The election of candidates and charter changes related to the Village of Palmetto Bay – the choices that you will make on this election cycle’s ballot -  is a referendum on how best to define COMMUNITY.

The present Council, including Mayor Stanczyk, Vice Mayor Pariser and Councilwoman Lindsay have demonstrated during their tenure that their definition of COMMUNITY can be defined as purely residential housing and nothing else.

They support policies that result in the restriction of private schools that could ultimately eliminate them from our neighborhoods.

They feel that residents should leave the Village to worship, eat and shop because those activities are an annoyance to residential living.

They feel that reasonable noise and lighting from children playing baseball, football and basketball is more of a nuisance to them than it is a joy to those of us who are parents and a benefit to our future generation.

They’ve all been a part of depleting the Village coffers by 10+ million dollars in three years, part of which was on an overblown Village Hall as an extravagant monument to their wasteful bureaucracy.

And, maybe this is the worst of all, they support policies that build a virtual moat and wall around the Village to out keep non-village residents.  To them, COMMUNITY stops at our borders.

Candidates running for office including John Dubois, Jim Araiza, Karyn Cunningham, Howard Tendrich, believe in a different definition of COMMUNITY.

While I am in not endorsing any of them by including their names or pointing this out, their view includes a measured balance of homes, schools, churches, businesses and opportunities for children. Furthermore, they support a sensible, responsible fiscal plan going forward.

This [post] isn’t meant to disparage the Mayor, Vice Mayor or Councilwoman.  If you asked them, they would admit they desire to have ultimate control of all growth, lighting, noise, traffic and construction and they certainly have a right to their point of view.

But to what end?  Should a church be allowed to expand if they have the land to do so?  Should children be permitted to play outside even if you can hear their distant laughter in your yard? Wouldn’t you like to eat and shop in your COMMUNITY rather than driving 20 minutes or more?

Is it really sensible to place virtual roadblocks in an attempt to keep non-village residents out of our COMMUNITY?  Is that what you do if you’re proud of where you live?  Imagine if Pinecrest, or Coral Gables, or Cutler Bay did that to us?

This is not a type of atmosphere, which I choose to live in.  I love the fact that there is the possibility for our Village to be an all-inclusive COMMUNITY to live in.

I’m requesting that before you vote on November 6th, you take the time to delve into what the candidates are advocating.  I would request that you ignore lawn signs and petty tit-for-tat issues.  I would hope that you vote based on the definition of COMMUNITY on its most all-encompassing meaning.

For the record, and hopefully to give you a level of comfort about my intentions: I, David Singer, have not given any contributions, committed my vote, endorsed, placed signs, run, walked or played patty cake with any candidate in this election.  I am beholden to no one and no one is beholden to me.  That’s just how I roll.

On November 7th, the day after the election, everyone in our COMMUNITY will still wake up, go to work, pay our bills, feed our families and celebrate life.  The real question is in what type of COMMUNITY would you like that to be?  Only you can decide with your vote.

David Singer

SDM Says: Sometimes others just say what SDM is thinking, only better.

2 comments
October 18, 2012

PB: SDM’s State of the Village Play-by-play

The Ron Burgundy Moment

In the movie Anchorman, Ron Burgundy played by Will Ferrell, causes a scandal when instead of “stay classy San Diego” he says “I’m Ron Burgundy, go f@%k yourself San Diego.” You see, Burgundy’s nemesis Veronica Corningstone changed Burgundy’s usual cutout knowing Burgundy would read whatever appeared on the teleprompter.

SDM couldn’t help but think of that scene while watching Mayor Stanczyk deliver her State of the Village address. At 11:43, Stanczyk recognizes the village’s charter officers by asking them to stand. They do so and then it down. Stanczyk continues with the speech saying at 12:00, “thank you, you may be seated.” The room erupts in laughter as Stanczyk says: “It’s in the speech!”

SDM does not make this stuff up.

Burgundy Moment II – Nobody’s here!

(28:46) “If you are currently serving on an advisory board, please stand and be recognized.” Long pause…nobody stands. “I guess nobody’s here!”

Caught dozing?

SDM noticed that the speech at 47:11 is about three-quarters done, but Councilman Tendrich doesn’t know this fact in live time. Tendrich appears to have either nodded off or located a dropped contact lens on the carpet.

SDM understands. By this time the Mayor’s droning put a toddler in the first row into a sound sleep. Don’t worry Howard, even a spring chicken couldn’t stay awake.

SDM gets more hits than the Village!

Mayor Stanczyk reported that Palmetto Bay’s website gets “over 300 hits per day.” (57:36) SDM has you beat Mme. Mayor!

Dwindling crowd

At 1:02:48, SDM counted 55 people in the chamber still hanging in there, but lots of empty seats were visible. Major props to Commissioner Bell for sitting through the whole speech. SDM would have bolted for the door. Maybe sitting in the front row wasn’t such a good idea.

Dessert anyone? No, exodus.

The speech finally ended at about 1:03:53 whereupon the Manager asked if anyone was willing to enjoy some dessert. The crowd seemed to have had enough based on the exodus for the doors.

SDM Wonders: Did someone yell “fire…the Three Amigos.”

5 comments
October 16, 2012

PB: Schaffer’s Black Helicopters

The Palmetto Bay News runs stories about the candidates for District 2 in its current edition. SDM reviewed the articles and couldn’t let them pass without a couple of snarky comments.

Howard Tendrich is his customary gentlemanly self. SDM is convinced Tendrich is a true child of the 60s – someone who really believes all you need is love and SDM thinks Palmetto Bay’s churches and schools surely could use some love.

Jim Araiza is his customary self, too. His is a campaign of trite, vacuous promises: “My primary focus is to promote active participation in our community.” Maybe Araiza should run for President of the chamber of commerce, instead.

From the usually invisible Tim Schaffer, Palmetto Bay is treated to an ominous black helicopter view of local politics:

“I chose to ask the residents of Palmetto Bay to allow me to represent them as a council member in District 2 because over the past two years I have noticed an attempt by non-resident outsiders to influence the direction of our village,” Schaffer said.

“This pressure has come in the form of groups backed by non-residents that seem to be only concerned about their own interests and not the interests of the residents. Those groups are backing some of the other candidates. My responsibility will be to our residents and their concerns.”

Of course, Mr. Schaffer won’t name the crafty outsiders who are exercising mind control on Palmetto Bay – at least he won’t name them in the newspaper. Schaffer and his buddies prefer to smear the opposition in emails from a shadowy non-profit corporation. Below is an excerpt from that nasty email:

DuBois, Araiza, and Cunningham are campaigning against ‘expensive lawsuits’ and ‘fiscal mismanagement,’ but fail to mention that the Village of Palmetto Bay is in excellent fiscal health with over $8 million in reserves. Moreover, the total amount spent by the village defending lawsuits arising from the council’s efforts to protect residential neighborhoods from intrusive development is only about $4 per resident for each of the past six years. Is $4 a year per resident too much for neighborhood protection?

Sound familiar? It’s the same argument made by village resident Chuck Latshaw in the Miami Herald. Go to PB: Rebutting Sycophancy – Act II for a thorough rebuttal of Latshaw’s tendentious letter.

By the way, Mr. Schaffer, can you name a single instance of “intrusive development”? Are speaking of the expansion of a school? If so, does that mean you oppose private schools in Palmetto Bay?

Palmetto Bay voters should reject the SOPs campaign of misinformation and fear-mongering. SDM is a Palmetto Bay resident and nobody pays a dime for anything that you read on this blog, so stop running around claiming everyone who disagrees with the Three Amigos is some kind of alien.

SDM Says: When a candidate can’t run on his record or his ideas, his only resort is to trash his opponents.

2 comments
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 45 other followers