Palmetto Bay News | South Dade Matters

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

October 22, 2012

PB: Is Captain Kreepy doing CCOCI’s bidding?

As regular SDM readers know, SDM has a pet name for Palmetto Bay’s flack: Captain Kreepy. The name comes from the flack’s publication on the village Facebook page of a group of children Kreepy was trying to identify.

Kreepy’s job ostensibly is to keep the community updated regarding various goings-on and to make sure village meetings are webcast and televised on the cable channel. Most of the time, he runs a good shop although he did manage to delete more than half of a crucial meeting on the “neighborhood protection” ordinance.

But then over the weekend, Captain Kreepy published this notice:

David Singer Makes Information Request for Village E-mail List

Village realizes residents may experience some inconvenience in use of your personal e-mail addresses, but must comply…

PALMETTO BAY, FLA., Oct. 20, 2012 — For more than four years, the Village of Palmetto Bay has distributed e-Currents to keep residents and other interested parties abreast of Village news and information. We do hope you have enjoyed the content and format of our newsletters — and hope that you will continue to do so in the future.

This special edition e-Currents is to advise you that an individual by the name of David M. Singer has requested the list of all e-mail subscribers to our Village newsletter. Under the laws of the State of Florida, disclosure of public records is the norm unless there is a specific exemption. In the case of an e-mail list that is accessible to the city, the e-mail list is a public record and subject to release. Additionally, while we belive (sic) your privacy should be respected, Mr. Singer may use the list without your approval.

We realize you may experience some inconvenience as a result of the release of your e-mail address; however, the Village must follow the Florida Sunshine Laws.

For information, contact the Village (see below), or David M. Singer [information deleted by SDM].

SDM has confirmed that in addition to publishing this message on the website, it was also sent under the village-owned constant contact account. What’s odd about this email is that the village website contains the following warning for anyone wanting to join the e-currents mailing list:

Be advised that if you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to or share your e-mail address with Palmetto Bay.

So why is there a need to warn folks on this public email list that someone, in fact, made a public records request for the list?

SDM Codebreaker: Mr. Singer is one of three Palmetto Bay residents who formed Recall Palmetto Bay, which seeks the defeat of Vice Mayor Pariser and the recall of Mayor Stanczyk and Councilwoman Lindsay. The Three Amigos and their SOP puppet masters at the Concerned Citizens of Old Cutler (CCOCI) don’t like him much and they apparently think they can intimidate him into silence.

This isn’t the first time the village has stooped to attempting to intimidate someone for having the nerve to request a copy of the village’s email list. Palmetto Bay attacked Grant Miller (publisher of the Palmetto Bay News) and the Palmetto Bay Village Voice for doing so.

Yet, SDM does not recall a similar message sent out when Mayor Stanczyk got a copy of the list. Stanczyk regularly terrorizes the public with incoherent emails sent without permission from the recipient.

But one significant part of this obnoxious tactic surprised event the jaded SDM. Captain Kreepy published Mr. Singer’s business address, phone numbers and email! There is only one reasonable explanation for doing so: Kreepy is trying to shut Mr. Singer up.

SDM Wonders: Who ordered Kreepy to put out this email and to publish this notice? Will Palmetto Bay residents condone this outrageous behavior from a village employee? If Kreepy was acting under orders, how high does this aggressive act of intimidation go?

SDM Says: The village council must ask Village Communications Director Bill Kress to explain why he published this offensive message and whether he did so under any person’s instructions. Village residents must not be implicitly excoriated when they ask for records to which they are entitled.

11 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

August 7, 2012

Weird and Kreepy Update

So SDM figured the kerfuffle uncovered by the post PB: Is this weird or creepy? (Updated) was over. But then, on the way out of Publix, SDM spotted the Palmetto Bay News dated August 7-20 and guess what? The picture, without the weird and creepy close-up, is right there on the front page!

So here’s the update.

Mr. Kress, who all village taxpayers support in the form of paying his salary, is Palmetto Bay’s flack (press agent). His job is to get positive publicity for the village, meaning mostly for Mayor Stanczyk.

Upon reading SDM’s harrumphing in the original post, Mr. Kress commented as follows:

SDM must have missed the stated reason why Village staff requested the names of these brave, civic-minded kids who came out to a public meeting (with TV cameras on every wall) so that they might be witnessed by the world for the amazing statement they are making about Drunk Drivers. As stated on the preceding photo in the Facebook album: “The Palmetto Bay News is considering an article on the roadway co-designation and wishes to obtain the names of students pictured here. Please feel free to contact the Village Communications Manager Bill Kress directly at 305-259-1234.” Thanks for drawing this much-needed attention to our effort at bringing this important story to the newspapers. (Emphasis added by SDM.)

When SDM read this comment a couple weeks ago, the message seemed to be that the Palmetto Bay News had taken a photo and contacted Mr. Kress for some help in identifying the kids so their names would appear below the picture. Instead, it was Kress who was flacking the Palmetto Bay News to publish the picture he took!

(SDM Note: The Palmetto Bay News must not have identified the mysterious humans because no names other than Kress’s appear below the picture.)

SDM, who did not know at the time that Mr. Kress was flacking himself with this picture, was nonplussed by the act of posting what looked like a WANTED poster of some teenagers on the Village’s Facebook page. But Kress was not ready to give up his self-appointed prerogatives and shot back:

Oh come on. They all wore the same shirts to a public rally — to make as big a visual statement as possible. While we look further into this South Dade Matter [SDM Note: See what he did here? Very clever flacking.], here’s an idea, in the spirit of “protecting” the children of our community:

Instill fear and apathy in our youth and their parents by characterizing media coverage as weird and creepy when all they want to do is organize and be seen in a unified block at a political forum wearing similarly colored, highly-visible shirts in support of an important, highly politicized cause in a room full of still and video cameras. (Emphasis and tacky commentary added by SDM.)

Mr. Kress is right: it’s not weird or creepy for real members of the media to take pictures at a rally. What is weird and instills fear – of waste at the very least – is when a village bureaucrat – on the taxpayers’ dime – takes unauthorized pictures of residents’ children for the purpose of advancing the Mayor’s political agenda.

Oh, and it’s Kreepy, too.

2 comments

October 20, 2011

Former Councilman Feller to Municipalities: Wake Up!

Former Palmetto Bay Councilman, Dr. Ed Feller authors in the Palmetto Bay News (October 18-31) a compelling argument against the South Dade Green Corridor District. This special taxing district is advertised as offering a financing opportunity to install energy savings devices on commercial and residential properties.

Among the problems according to Dr. Feller’s analysis:

Legal issues related to the priority of the special taxing district’s lien against the commercial or residential property;
High interest rate and financing restrictions;
A troubling bid process that leaves Palmetto Bay virtually no option but to contract with a company called Ygrene Florida – a company with no assets or track record;
A lack of insurance on the energy savings expected to be realized; and
The lack of relevant qualifications for the district’s board of directors.

SDM did a little research on Ygrene, a limited liability company, and found that its “Manager” is Lykes Brothers, Inc., which is a large family-owned concern out of Tampa. Lykes and Ygrene share the same CEO: Howell L. Ferguson, a scion of the Lykes family. Lykes touts itself as an environmentally conscious company, but others consider it an environmental despoiler.

In a recent column in News-Press.com (covering Lee and Collier Counties), environmentalist Ellen Peterson excoriates the head of Florida Audubon for supporting Lykes Brothers’ “…conversion of Nicodemus Slough into a shallow holding tank for industrial-strength polluted water from Lake Okeechobee…” and “…placement of dams in Fisheating Creek, formerly the last unimpeded waterway in South Florida.”

SDM prides itself on not stooping to ad hominem arguments, so to be clear: SDM doesn’t know if Lykes Brothers is a “good” or “bad” company with regard to environmental issues. The problem is neither does Palmetto Bay or Cutler Bay.

Our good leaders also don’t know if Ygrene will be backed up by Lykes Brothers. In fact, our leaders don’t seem to understand much about this deal, except that it sounds good and that it’s “green.”

Village leaders take note: the “green” Lykes usually likes is the green found on money, regardless of the true environmental cost. Palmetto Bay and Cutler Bay would do well to heed Dr. Feller’s wake-up call.