South Dade Matters

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

Tag: Palmetto Bay

PB: Charter Amendment – SDM Says Vote Yes

Palmetto Bay voters may be scratching their heads when they notice the charter amendment on their ballots. What, pray tell is the origin of this question?

Referendum Regarding Expansion of Private Schools: The proposed Charter Amendment changes the requirement that 75% of the electors living within a 2,000 foot radius of a private school seeking to expand student enrollment approve of such expansion in a referendum to a requirement that a majority of such electors approve of such expansion in the referendum. Shall the above described amendment be adopted?

SDM wrote a blog on May 2, 2013 explaining the history of the amendment.  (Hint: You may enjoy the Monty Python reference.) Later in that year, the village held a referendum asking whether the Alexander Montessori School should be allowed to add students. Here is what we wrote in the aftermath of that vote:

Lindsay’s Lawsuit City

In what SDM sees as a very sad story, a Palmetto Bay’s Alexander Montessori School failed to garner enough votes to add a paltry 59 seats to its enormous 270 student body. As SDM blogged about in PB: Ready for Another Lawsuit?, the Alexander school needed to convince 75% of its neighbors to vote for the school’s expansion.

This crazy requirement comes from a Councilwoman Joan Lindsay sponsored charter amendment, which foolish Palmetto Bay voters adopted after Ms. Lindsay lost her battle against the Palmer Trinity expansion. Ironically, Ms. Lindsay asked the Alexander School’s neighbors to vote for the expansion, though SDM doubts Ms. Lindsay would have  given Palmer a positive vote if it were up to her.

One of the school’s owners told the Miami Herald that they may ask the voters to consider their plan again. SDM has to give the guy credit for being an optimist. The tragedy is that instead of investing his hard earned money in improving his school, the owner is forced to pay for another referendum that he might lose again. Of course, a referendum might be less expensive than a long and protracted lawsuit, especially given the village council’s history of intransigence.

SDM Says: Councilwoman Lindsay often strikes a tone of reasonableness now that her re-election is on the near term horizon. But this referendum requirement that she mothered into existence will eventually be challenged in court on basic fairness principles. In the meantime, children and property owners in this village are suffering. When voters evaluate her record, Councilwoman Lindsay must not be permitted to escape her legacy of litigation.

The charter amendment rids the village of the dangerous, arbitrary and totally unfair 75% requirement and grants a majority of neighbors a veto of a privates school’s expansion plan.

SDM Says: We will vote yes because the amendment is an improvement over the status quo, but we still think the requirement violates the school’s due process rights.

PB: Three More Reasons You Must Vote Against Shelley Stanczyk

If you don’t know the mess Mayor Stancyzk made of Palmer, then you can go back and read through some of our posts by searching under “Palmer Trinity.” We also won’t talk about how bloated the village budget became under her tenure. No today we won’t be focusing on those calamities. Today we discuss three more reasons to vote against Shelley Stanczyk, each of which stands on its own.

Thalatta Estate Park

Many Palmetto Bay taxpayers are unfamiliar with the history of the village’s only bay front property, at least that has been our experience when speaking with friends and neighbors.

One possible reason may be that Thalatta was essentially closed off to regular people for most of the week until earlier this year when Guest Poster David Singer raised the village’s behavior to the State of Florida. Now, regular Village People can enter and visit the park more often, though not as often as a regular park.

The reason Thalatta is so remote lies squarely on the shoulders of Mayor Stanczyk. As Mayor, Stanczyk became infatuated with paid events at Thalatta, namely weddings. Glamorous and expensive weddings became so de rigueur at Thalatta that the park has actually been on television!

Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with a municipality attempting to earn income as a mechanism to lessen the need for taxpayers to fund repairs and maintenance, but over time Thalatta became virtually unavailable to the general public. Even today, weekends are occupied by large events that are not subjected to the village’s noise ordinance.

Stanczyk, in her zeal to turn Thalatta into a publicly-owned business, proposed that the village council authorize a huge addition to the historic house on the property for the purpose of facilitating yet more weddings and events, neighbors be damned.

The last village council torpedoed Stanczyk’s grand vision when former Councilman Howard Tendrich joined Patrick Fiore to vote against modifying the village master plan, which was a necessary step to adding the controversial addition.

The Thalatta episode showed Mrs. Stanczyk’s true colors as Mayor. She wanted to bask in the glow from these weddings and events despite the fact that doing so restricted the park’s use to just a chosen few.

Fire Station Failures

While Thalatta represents a loss to the Village People in the quality of life category, Mayor Stanczyk’s failure to site even one fire station over the last four years is a life and death issue, most literally.

In Palmetto Bay, the Mayor plays a significant role in formulating and initiating public policy. Without active and skilled leadership, controversial matters such as siting fire-rescue facilities linger and drift.

The two sites proposed for Palmetto Bay will never, ever satisfy all the people. By their very nature, such facilities are nuisances…unless the siren is heading for your house in a moment of need, that is.

True leadership means that one is willing to lose an election if it means making the community safer and healthier. But even that sacrificial standard cannot be met when the controversial items don’t even get to a vote by the council.

Stanczyk’s last attempts to site the North and South fire-rescue stations ended ignominiously without a substantive vote being taken!

One of the Mayor’s basic functions in Palmetto Bay is to shepherd items through the agenda process and Mayor Stanczyk cannot do it, even when she is holding the lives of the residents of three municipalities in her hands. Keeping this mayor in place would be a political tragedy that could result in an actual tragedy. Think your vote doesn’t count?

The Barking Dogs Ordinance

We’ve written extensively here about Mayor Stanczyk’s proposed ordinance to muzzle barking dogs, which we always viewed as fanciful. What’s amazing is that every Village Person we meet knows about this dumb idea, though they may never have heard of the fire station controversies or Palmer or the misuse of a village park.

There is something visceral when a political figure goes after the family pet. We know that SDM’s pets are by far the most popular members of our families, so the reaction should come as no surprise.

Yet, there is something more to the story that lots of  Village People don’t know or understand: the origins of the dispute.

You see, Mrs. Stanczyk has been in a feud with Seat 1 candidate David Zisman for years. We are told the trouble started when Zisman had some issues with a tennis court on his property. The end result was a political brawl between Stanczyk and Zisman that has spanned almost her entire tenure as a village politician.

Before he threw his hat in the political ring – again – and before he adopted his current mild-mannered facade, Zisman was known to stand before the village council and berate Mayor Stancyzk. The videos are hard to watch, but you can find them by searching “Zisman” on this blog…you will learn more him than you want to know!

So, as SDM sees it at least, when the mighty Mayor found out that one or more of Zisman’s dogs were keeping his neighbors awake at night (seriously, how rude can one be?), she pounced.

The only problem was how to draft a village-wide ordinance that would hurt her nemesis but be seen as “reasonable” by the rest of the Village People. Answer: You can’t draft such an ordinance without freaking out all normal pet owners and Stanczyk reaped the whirlwind.

One shouldn’t legislate based on anecdote, or so goes the old saw, which surely means one shouldn’t legislate to exact revenge on a political opponent. Yet, here is the Village People’s Mayor doing just that. Pitiful and pathetic are words that rush to mind, though our neighbors who learned of the idea on the evening news just figured we were a bunch of fools led by the chief fool.


SDM Says: We have our favorite in the Mayor’s race and have made that view clear; however, we are even more adamant on this point: Stanczyk must go unless you want to live in a village where your parks are closed off from the public; where your family is vulnerable to dangerously long wait-times for fire-rescue; and where your precious pooch may be monitored by big brother every time she is excited by a squirrel. It may sound funny, but it ain’t no joke.

PB: Three Weeks To Election Day

It’s hard to believe, but election day is right around the corner and the tired, tired Palmetto Bay voters just screamed in unison: Finally!

The Money

As of the end of September, the Mayoral candidates stack up as follows in terms of money available:

  1. Peter England $13,000
  2. Shelley Stanczyk $9,400
  3. Eugene Flinn $6,000
  4. Patrick Fiore $5,000

SDM Says: Money, while important, is less of a factor in a small race like Palmetto Bay’s. Nevertheless, whenever a sitting public official, like Mayor Stanczyk, is running for re-election and is being outspent by a challenger, that is a bad sign.

Seat 1 is a dead heat in the money game with Karyn Cunningham and David Zisman heading into the home stretch with an astonishing $30,000 each in the bank. Zisman has raised more overall ($43,000) but Cunningham is close on his heels ($38,000).

SDM Says: We can’t figure out how TWO council candidates each have almost as much money available at this point as do FOUR mayoral candidates. This seat must be setting the spending record for Palmetto Bay.

Seat 3 has three candidates with “normal” sums of money available:

  1. Larissa Siegel Lara $9,000
  2. Henry Clifford $7,000
  3. Jim Shedd $5,000

SDM Says: The smart money has to figure a runoff in this race, which means some donors are likely to hold out to get a bigger bang with runoff money.

It looks on the street like England and Siegel Lara have combined forces just as the color-coordinated Stanczyk and Clifford have done. Really Henry? You want to be hitched to Mme. Mayor so blindly that you can’t even pick your own sign colors?

Fire Stations Remain Controversial

Despite a Herculean effort to ram home the two fire stations before the election by Mayor Stanczyk, both the southern location at the Palmetto Bay Village Center (F/K/A Burger King Headquarters) and the northern site(s) at Farmer Road and Old Cutler Road continue to fester.

Grant Miller, publisher of the Palmetto Bay news, took Mayor Stanczyk to task for her blatant attempt to curry favor with the property owner by circumventing a covenant running with the land:

Under the covenant, the referendum to obtain a minimum of 75% voter approval is only required if the application is submitted by the property owner.”  So what does Mayor Stanczyk do? In the same year her family members have incorporated at least two construction companies located in Palmetto Bay;  she becomes more than a cheerleader, she actually SPONSORS the change, becoming the actual applicant, which robs the residents of their protections of the covenant.

Boy, that stings. It’s funny. SDM thinks the property owner deserves a fair hearing on maximizing the use of his land, especially if the so-called “endangered habitat” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

However, we also think it’s dirty pool by a mayor who is so desperate to make headway on siting the fire station. We understand how the property owner may be using the fire station as leverage to get his site plan amended, but if the deal isn’t good for the environment and the community then why pursue it?

The northern site is shaping up to be a headache for the next Mayor and Council. On the East side of Old Cutler, you have the endlessly hyperbolic Gary Pastorella who may actually suffer a stroke if the fire station is installed at the opening to his cul-de-sac. And, on the other side of Old Cutler you have candidate Zisman – who may become Councilman Zisman – and who has flip-flopped from supporting the station site on his side of the road to now opposing it.

SDM Says: Welcome to Palmetto Bay! The Village of Lawsuits.

Have You Seen The Avmed Commercial?

Former Channel 10 front man Dwight Lauderdale appears in a commercial touting Avmed and guess who is one of the spot’s stars? Yep, none other than mayor candidate Peter England. The ad below is another in the Peter England body of work, but his speaking role seems to have been cut out:

PB: Guest Post by David Singer – Where did all the money go?

I never thought anything could ever surprise me in the Village of Palmetto Bay. Then it happen, something so misleading, something so financially irresponsible, something…something…so typical for this current administration, why would I be surprised?

Let us all take a step back to when Palmetto Bay Village was incorporated, the year 2002. Back then, when a municipality (Palmetto Bay) broke from the ranks of Miami-Dade County they were required to pay a mitigation fee to the city. The mitigation fee was designed to (1) maintain police services in the unincorporated areas proximate to the Village; and (2) to provide a municipal assistance retainer enabling the Village to obtain certain advice, expertise. training, financial planning and technological services, and other assistance from the County. The mitigation fee being paid annually to Miami-Dade County fluctuated from approximately $1.4 to $1.6 million dollars during fiscal years 2002-2006.

Someone in the Village must have gotten wise to the legality of these mitigation fees in 2006 and filed suit against Miami-Dade County. Then Mayor Flinn also went to Tallahassee along with the mayors of Doral and Miami Lakes to have the State stop Miami-Dade County from opposing this tax. Both the Florida House and State Senate acted favorably on these efforts, ultimately forcing Miami-Dade County to negotiate and remove these fees. Flinn’s efforts along with the mayors of Doral and Miami Lakes paid off for the taxpayers of Palmetto Bay as litigation apparently ended in 2009.

Per the Palmetto Bay 2008-2009 Financial Statements, “the Village and Miami-Dade County came to a settlement for the litigation involving the legality of the mitigation payment. According to the settlement, the mitigation payment totaling $4,631,723 for fiscal year 2006-2007, fiscal year 2007-2008 and fiscal year 2008-2009 was paid to an escrow account which was held by the County Attorney and was released to the County on June 25, 2009.”

If you review the Palmetto Bay Village financials, you will notice a 1 million to a 1.5 million decrease in the General Government Expenditure line item in years 2007, 2008 and 2009. You will also find the settlement payment of $4,631,723 and a General Government Expenditure of $2,911,097 in the year 2009.

Commencing in fiscal year 2010 General Governmental Expenditures seem to balloon. Under the Shelley Stanczyk and Ron Williams tenure as Mayor and Village Manager, respectively, the mitigation savings of $1.6 million all but disappeared after year 2011. The General Government expenditures increased from $2,911,097 in 2009 to $3,429,396, in 2010, $3,700,958 in 2011, $4,701,490 in 2012 and $4,713,967 in 2013. All this information can be found in the 2013 audited financial report located on the Village of Palmetto Bay website.

So where did the money go? The Village Manager ballooned the budget so fast that not ONE resident received any tax savings which should have trickled down to them after mitigation fees ended. In addition, and to add insult to injury Mayor Stanczyk and Village Manager Ron Williams have not only increased operating expenses within the Village but continue to gloat about having a balanced budget for the past four years.

Criticizing Mayor Stanczyk and Village Manager Ron Williams does not excuse other Council members who have served since 2010 and have voted to approve annual budgets. There should have been someone (anyone) in the last four years who asked the question, where did the $1.6 million dollars in savings disappear to?

In actuality, annual saving of $1.6 million over a four-year period without decreasing real estate taxes should have increased Palmetto Bays reserve approximately $6.5 million dollars. Logically this would have delayed any increase in Real Estate taxes that according to the Village is projected for in the near future.

Once again, as numerous Village residents have pointed out, we have a Mayor and certain Council Members that are not fiscally responsible. The Mayor and Village Manager have proven repeatedly that they have the ability to waste taxpayer’s dollars. Just look at the Art Sculpture just purchased at Village Hall, which costs approximately $50,000, or the $10 million dollars that they voted to spend for a community center at Coral Reef Park.

David Singer

PB: Miami Herald Background Checks Slam Zisman, Fiore, England & Shedd

From the Miami Herald, which for some inexplicable reason is running under the “Pinecrest” section of the local news:


Palmetto Bay Village Council candidate David Zisman, running on his “40 years of business experience,” has had two business bankruptcies.

That was one of the findings from routine background checks conducted by the Miami Herald of the candidates up for election next month.

The Herald also found that mayoral candidate Patrick Fiore, when he was on a local zoning board, made at least $180,000 flipping properties he had purchased from a developer who routinely appeared before the board.

Mayoral candidate Peter England, when he worked at a local nonprofit group, was once accused by a former coworker of pressuring other employees to donate to political candidates and then reimbursing them through the nonprofit. The accusation came in a lawsuit against the nonprofit. England was not sued personally, and the case was settled out of court.

And candidate James Archie Shedd, who previously ran for Miami-Dade County property appraiser, was found by the state elections commission to have violated a rule on campaign-finance reporting, but not fined.

Background checks of the other five Village Council candidates found no issues of note.


Village Council candidate David Zisman has been touting his business acumen during the campaign.

“I’m here to pledge to you tonight — I’m never going to raise taxes,” he said at a Sept. 30 candidate forum. “We don’t need to raise taxes, we just need to manage our finances. We need to bring a business point of view to this council — and that’s what I bring. Forty years of business experience.”

In 2012 and 2013, Zisman filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcies on two of his businesses, which deal in barbecue equipment, Jacuzzi baths and kitchen appliances.

The 2013 bankruptcy, filed in November, was for Evening’s Delight Inc. According to Zisman, the bankruptcy was purely “administrative.”

“Evening’s Delight has never been in financial trouble. Ever, ever, ever. [It’s] all about consolidating the corporations,” he said.

But before that bankruptcy was filed — the proceedings are still ongoing — two creditors named in the bankruptcy filed lawsuits for unpaid debts and received judgments in their favor.

Vent-a-Hood, a Texas-based kitchen hood manufacturer, won $62,313 plus $12,882 in attorney’s fees in October 2010 when it sued Evening’s Delight in a Texas state court.

Samuel, Son & Co., a metals distributor, won $29,171 in damages from Evening’s Delight in June 2013.

Asked about the lawsuits, Zisman said they did not indicate he had any problem paying back vendors. He said he had called to let them know he would be filing for bankruptcy, and that they had opted to sue just to make sure the bankruptcy wouldn’t allow him not to pay them back.

“I let them know what was going on; they were merely protecting themselves. And they did that. And if you pull the court records, you’ll see I didn’t even have a defense. I just let them do what they wanted to do,” Zisman said. “They’re getting paid back as we speak.”

According to Vent-a-Hood president William Miles Woodall III, Zisman filed for bankruptcy after Vent-a-Hood tried to prove that Zisman had shifted assets to another Evening’s Delight company to get out of paying the debt.

Vent-a-hood did not sue because Zisman had warned them of the bankruptcy, Woodall said. It’s the other way around, he said.

“He filed for bankruptcy because we started deposing his family,” he said. “There’s no question he did it to get out of what he owed us.”

Pressed as to why the vendors were not paid between the time they received judgments in their favor and when the bankruptcy was filed — just over three years elapsed between Vent-a-Hood’s initial judgment and the bankruptcy filing — Zisman stopped answering questions.

“I told you already, this is a story about nothing. You and the Herald are trying to do a hatchet job on me. I don’t appreciate it. Please do a story on a real event. My business is in business; I’m doing well. Thank you very much.”

In response to Zisman’s comment that Vent-a-Hood was in the process of being paid back, Woodall said he had just talked to his lawyer, who had been in touch with the bankruptcy trustee. Zisman is offering $25,000. “A small pittance,” he said, compared to what he’s owed.

According to the bankruptcy filing, outstanding debts to Vent-a-Hood now total $89,480.

The 2012 bankruptcy, filed that April, concerned Luxury Kitchen Hoods LLC, a company Zisman incorporated in 2010. He said he sold the assets of the business to a competitor before the bankruptcy filing, and the competitor took on a large chunk of the $600,672 in liabilities listed in the filing. Zisman would not say who had bought Luxury Kitchen Hoods’ assets, citing a “non-disclosure agreement.”


The Herald also found that when mayoral candidate Fiore was chairman of the West Kendall Community Council, he made at least $180,000 flipping properties he had purchased from a developer who routinely appeared before the council for zoning changes.

Fiore is now a Palmetto Bay Village Council member.

The ethics commission looked at it and found no probable cause to move forward,” Fiore said last week when asked to comment.

That is in line with what Fiore told the Herald in August 2006. But at the time, the Herald found that while Fiore had asked the ethics commission for an opinion on the matter, he had not told it that the vote would take place while he was currently under contract with the developer.

The ethics commission has repeatedly ruled that officials can vote on matters that affect parties that they have done business with so long as that business is not ongoing during the vote.

Robert Meyers, then the director of the Miami-Dade County Commission on Ethics and Public Trust, also told the Herald in 2006 that it was unknown how the commission might have ruled.

Fiore declined to answer whether he would vote again on a developer’s proposal in a similar situation.


The Herald found a lawsuit against Camillus House, a nonprofit agency serving the homeless, where mayoral candidate Peter England was director of government relations until 2009. England was not a defendant in the suit, but was mentioned in it.

In March 2005, Tyrone G. Hart, a former director of development of Camillus House, accused the nonprofit of wrongful termination and alleged that England routinely pressured employees to donate to political candidates and then reimbursed them through the agency.

Hart accused England of directing him to donate to a candidate, and said he received a check from Camillus House in the same amount about two weeks later. He said he refused to take the money.

Camillus House and Hart settled the case out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Asked about the matter during an elections interview earlier this year, England called Hart a “disgruntled former employee” and said, “There was nothing to it, there was never anything to it. I don’t know how the suit was settled.”


Council candidate James Archie Shedd has run for political office once before, in 2008, when he lost in Miami-Dade’s first election for property appraiser. In 2010, the Florida Elections Commission found that he violated election laws when he went into overdraft to pay for campaign expenses and failed to report his qualifying fee as a campaign expenditure.

He said in May during an elections interview that he took full responsibility in front of the commission.

“They said, basically, ‘Don’t do this again,’ and that was it. No fine, no penalty. They decided that because I had spent so much money on a losing campaign, that was enough punishment. Which it really was,” Shedd said.

PB: Ethical Campaign Practice?

Stanczyk Re-election Mailer Unethical?

SDM recently reviewed a campaign mailer from Mayor Shelley Stanczyk and found it to be a problem. No, it wasn’t that Mrs. Stanczyk couldn’t spell Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen’s first name correctly (she wrote “leana”); that’s just a dumb typo.

The problem is that the mailer displays two photos that imply endorsements. The top photo is of the mayor and Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen who is a popular and powerful Republican. The bottom photo is of the mayor and recently elected “Commissioner Daniella Levine-Cava” (actually, she’s “Commissioner-elect” but Mrs. Stanczyk never weds herself too closely to the truth of a matter).

The mailer does not state that either Ros-Lehtinen or Levine-Cava endorsed Stanczyk, but many voters might get this impression. SDM checked one of Stanczyk’s websites and found that neither of these political figures are listed as having endorsed Mrs. Stanczyk.

Putting a photo of yourself with a well-known political figure sends a message. Here, Mrs. Stanczyk has been careful not to overtly claim an endorsement, but then what message is she sending? That she knows these people? That she works with these people?

Perhaps she wants Palmetto Bay voters – especially Republicans who would normally tend to dislike her tax and spend ways – to say, gee, Ileana likes her so we will like her, too. Before Republican Village People jump to that conclusion, consider the following.

Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen’s husband earns a portion of his living by serving as village attorney at the pleasure of the Mayor and Council of Palmetto Bay.

SDM Wonders: Did Mayor Stanczyk receive permission from the Congresswoman before plastering her photo all over a political mailer? If so, was it really fair for a liberal Democrat like Stanczyk to even ask the Congresswoman’s permission when Stanczyk knows that Ileana’s husband is employed by the Mayor and village council? Does every member of the council get the same privilege?

SDM Says: These types of ethical quandaries are subtle and we doubt Mme. Mayor even considered them for a moment. In Mrs. Stanczyk’s world, the end justifies the means. It is up to us as voters to penalize Stanczyk for unethically forcing the honorable Congresswoman into a no-win situation.

SDM: Harvey Ruvin Update

SDM received two comments from Clerk Harvey Ruvin asking for us to call him to discuss our post, Harvey Ruvin’s Sea Level Rise Hysteria. In that post, SDM argued that Mr. Ruvin’s moonlighting as a hawker of a phony sea level rise threat to Miami could hurt us if insurers begin to rate us differently. SDM went on to argue that we ought to retire Mr. Ruvin based on his insisting the sky is falling (err…the water is rising?) when it clearly isn’t.

Apparently Mr. Ruvin took issue and asked SDM to call him so he could berate or argue with us. We don’t take calls, as the innumerable folks who have demanded we call them already know, because we are anonymous. Calling you, Mr. Ruvin, would screw that up.

But, your call got us to thinking about what has changed since our September post and surprisingly much has.

For example, just a few days ago, the world learned that we just passed 18 years without any global temperature increase:


We also learned that the theory that the deep ocean has absorbed the hypothetical global heat does not bear out when actual measurements are taken.


All of these data coincide precisely with the observations of sea level from Key West, which has the best information for our region (the Miami Beach station was retired so it doesn’t reflect data from the last two decades):

Key West

The mean sea level trend is 2.24 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.16 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1913 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 0.73 feet in 100 years.

Note that the Key West readings are trending at an increase of less than 1 foot per century and that the trend has been steady for the entire measurement period.

The other thing that is important to note is that NONE of the models Mr. Ruvin and his group rely upon as gospel for cataclysmic sea level rise predicted the results actually measured in real time. None.

So why is SDM so angry about Mr. Ruvin’s avocation as a climatologist? Consider the following.

If you live in Palmetto Bay – or anywhere in the United States that has flood exposure, for that matter – your community is rated under the National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System. Your flood insurance rate is based at least in part upon how many feet above mean sea level your real property sits.

Thus, if Harvey Ruvin is right and mean sea level is going to rise according to what the “experts” in the local climate change scientific community claim, then we are looking at changes in mean sea level as follows:

Pages from sea-level-rise

Instead of charging us rates based on actual sea level rise (i.e., just under one inch per decade or 6 inches by 2060), what is to stop the government or private companies from using Mr. Ruvin’s “scientific consensus” (9-24 inches by 2060) to justify higher rates? Most insurers probably think Mr. Ruvin was heaven-sent.

Now, We understand Mr. Ruvin’s passion. He was an early advocate when the ozone layer was the big deal. Now, he’s latched on to climate change. We as voters – if we were paying attention – knew what we were getting when we voted him into office. Perhaps we were a little hasty.

SDM Says: Mr. Ruvin seems oblivious to the damage he could do – or may have already done – to Palmetto Bay, Cutler Bay and Pinecrest homeowners if our flood insurance rates were to be calculated based upon a bunch of faulty computer models.  It’s the kind of damage you can’t cure with a phone call either.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 65 other followers