|
 |
|
FDOT held a presentation last
week about plans to add new lanes to the local
expressway system. To use them, though, you’ll
have to pay a toll. |
About 50 people came to the Miami
Shores Country Club at 10000 Biscayne Blvd. on June 27
to hear representatives of the Florida Department of
Transportation give a formal presentation of its 95
Express project.
The 95 Express project calls for the creation of two new
lanes on Interstate-95, both to be used by
high-occupancy vehicles or drivers willing to pay a fee.
The lanes, spanning 24 miles, will connect the Miami
central business district from I-395 to I-595. FDOT
literature calls it “the first critical link to the
regions up and coming network of managed lanes.”
According to census data, South Florida ranks as one of
the top 10 metro areas for population growth in the
nation over the last six years. The population is
estimated to grow more than 50 percent by 2025, and this
will be accompanied by severe congestion along the
critical I-95 north-south corridor. The 95 Express
project is an effort to better manage congestion and
provide travel options for drivers. FDOT statistics say
this stretch of highway is used by an average of 250,000
to 300,000 vehicles per day.
To create one new lane in each direction, already
existing lanes will be narrowed from 12 feet wide to 11
feet, and shoulder widths will be slightly reduced. This
way, the I-95 corridor can be expanded without having
major construction work done, explains FDOT literature.
The two already existing high-occupancy vehicle lanes,
along with the two newly created ones, will be converted
to the for pay lanes. Plastic poles, called tubular
delineators, are to provide a separation between the pay
lanes and the regular general-purpose lanes. Once the
project is complete, there will be six lanes in each
direction, said Alice N. Bravo, FDOT’s district director
of transportation systems development.
The toll rate will be calculated by using “congestion
pricing,” meaning fees will rise or fall based upon the
amount of traffic on the road at certain times of day.
FDOT said rates for managed lanes across the United
States vary from 15 cents per mile low peak to 95 cents
per mile during high peak times. Vanpools, registered
carpools with at least three people and 95 Express buses
can use the lanes for free.
FDOT will endeavor to maintain an operating speed of 50
mph to keep traffic on the managed roads “free flowing,”
Bravo said. Overall, FDOT estimates that the project
would provide potential time savings of up to 25 minutes
from I-595 to I-395 during peak travel periods.
Five spots in between Fort Lauderdale and Miami are now
being considered for entry/exit points. “State of the
art” tolling technology compatible with SunPass will be
used to apply the pricing. There will be no tollbooth
stopping; fees will be paid by SunPass transponders and
real-time communicating will be possible through the use
of electronic billboards, Bravo said.
The projected cost of 95 Express is $210 million. FDOT
is applying for federal funding from the United States
Department of Transportation’s Urban Partnership
Agreement program. Bravo said that by early 2008 part of
the project can be completed; the quick implementation
can be achieved because only “minor changes” will have
to be made to the highway, such as the above mentioned
lane narrowing, re-striping and some limited
construction on the road’s shoulders.
After a power point presentation people were allowed to
ask questions and give their opinions. “We just got too
many cars in Dade County,” said Ken Whiting, a South
Florida resident who considers himself “neutral” on the
95 Express project. He believes the new lanes ought to
be available to drivers for free when there is an
accident holding up traffic.
“The freeway is not supposed to charge us one penny to
travel down the road,” said Jesus Rodriguez, who
attended the meeting. Rodriguez suspects that the new
fee lanes will set a bad precedent and, in five years
time, tolls will likely be charged for using the other
lanes, which, he said, would not be fair to middle-class
people like himself. Mary Johnson, another resident,
agreed with Rodriguez. “Who is it actually serving?” she
asked.
According to FDOT, the “managed lane” concept has been
very successful in other metropolitan areas throughout
the nation, including SR 91 in Orange County, Calif;
I-15 in San Diego, Calif.; I-10 in Houston, Texas; I-394
in Minneapolis, Minn.; and SR 618 in Tampa.
çhome
Miami Beach
Size Matters
A
Purported Miami Beach Mayoral Candidate Finds a Way to
Get Attention
By Ben Torter
 |
|
This banner in front of the home
of William “Bill” Smatt caused a stir among some
of his neighbors. |
A Miami Beach resident with a big
white beard, who looks like a cross between Moses and
Santa Claus, has created quite a buzz about town with a
campaign banner that many find offensive and homophobic.
Hung in front of William “Bill” Smatt’s home at 4760
Alton Road last week was a huge red, white and blue
banner announcing his purported run for mayor, with the
additional anti-gay phrase: “GOD Created Adam + Eve, NOT
Adam + Steve.”
Late last week Smatt told Murmurs he intended to
register to run for mayor Monday, July 2. Murmurs didn’t
know as of press time if he went through with his
promise (threat?) because of early deadlines the dreaded
“Best of 2007” issue.
Ever since Smatt raised the banner on Thursday, June 28,
Miami Beach City Hall has been flooded with calls from
residents demanding it should be taken down. The giant
banner runs nearly the entire width of Smatt’s front
yard.
“I find the sign to be offensive to all the people in
Miami Beach,” said Frank Kruszewski, an openly gay
candidate for Commission Seat 6. “It so does not reflect
the mindset of the people of this city.”
When asked if he was anti-gay, as many have gleaned from
his sign, Smatt’s written response seemed to ride both
sides of the fence. “NO! Some
of my best friends are gay,” Smatt stated via e-mail. “I
want morality brought back to Miami Beach for families
with children from all over the world, including
Miami-Dade families, to enjoy all that South Beach and
the coastline has to offer. I don’t approve of flaunting
in public places indecent behavior.”
According to Assistant City Manager Hilda Fernandez,
code compliance officers went out to Smatt’s home the
day the sign appeared and told him he had to remove the
banner because part of it was attached to public
property close to the road. At first he called the
police, but later moved the banner so it was completely
within the boundaries of his property.
The next day, compliance returned to Smatt’s home and
gave him 24 hours to remove the sign. “You aren’t
allowed to have banners in a residential neighborhood
and election signs can’t be banners,” Fernandez said.
Election signs fall under the construction sign category
in the city codebook, and can’t be larger than four
square feet. If Smatt didn’t remove the sign by Saturday
afternoon (June 30), Fernandez said he would be
scheduled to see the special master, who would most
likely begin imposing daily fines. If he removed the
banner in the allotted time, he would not be fined. As
of Saturday afternoon, at deadline, the SunPost
was told by neighbors that the sign was still up.
Though the city agrees the banner should come down,
according to Fernandez it’s the size of your banner that
matters, and not the content. “We weren’t addressing the
content, only the provisions of the code whether it’s
permitted or not,” Fernandez said.
When called last Friday evening Smatt had the flu and
could hardly talk. So he put his long time friend
Virginia Schweikert on the phone to answer a burning
question: Will he take the banner down?” She replied,
“It’s a civil matter, let the city deal with Mr. Smatt.”
çhome
Do It!
Planning Board OKs Arts District Regulations
By Ben Torter
As in other hip enclaves such as
Greenwich Village, SoHo and Coconut Grove, artists moved
into a deteriorated, crime-ridden South Beach and helped
popularize the area with the masses. Then the rents went
up and the artists were driven out.
Miami Beach Mayor David Dermer wants the artists back,
and the city’s Planning Board voted to move that wish
one step closer to fruition. On Tuesday, June 26, the
board voted to approve the borders, zoning incentives
and other regulations connected with the Cultural Arts
Neighborhood District Overlay. The proposed CANDO
ordinance still has to be approved by the City
Commission.
“The heart and soul of what most people like about Miami
Beach is the artists and cultural workers,” said Robert
Wennett, a CANDO board member and president of UIA
Management. Wennett is redeveloping the SunTrust
building at 1111 Lincoln Road, in the block between
Alton Road and Lenox Avenue that the City Commission, in
February, unanimously voted to close to traffic. The
CANDO borders, but does not include, Wennett’s property.
Wennett explained that the idea behind CANDO is to work
within existing zoning to offer incentives to developers
to create both for-sale and affordable rental housing
for artists and other cultural workers. Some of these
development enticements include allowing smaller living
units, “live-work” units with less parking than normally
required by city code and the loosening of other density
rules.
The proposed CANDO district is bounded by Dade Boulevard
and 24th Street on the north, Lenox Avenue on the west,
Lincoln Lane South on the south and the Atlantic Ocean
on the east. Within the district are the headquarters of
the New World Symphony, Bass Museum, Miami City
Ballet, Miami Beach Botanical Garden and Art Center
South Florida.
Planning Board members voted 6-0 in favor of the CANDO
regulations. Ted Berman was absent. There was little
opposition from the audience — beyond an expressed
desire for affordable housing for other segments of the
population as well — but much discussion pertaining to
details.
One of the conditions of the vote to move CANDO to the
City Commission was to refine the definition of artists
and cultural workers.
Planning Board member Matthew Adler sparked a debate as
to exactly how those terms should be defined. Assistant
City Manager Hilda Fernandez defined artist as someone
whose primary income is from art. It could include
visual artists, writers, musicians, dancers, designers
and anyone working in a cultural institution such as a
museum or performance space, she said. City staff
members were asked to further refine the designation.
Adler also questioned what would happen if someone moved
into CANDO affordable housing, and then switched
professions to something other than artist. Wennett said
there would be checks in place to deal with those cases.
The other condition of the vote was raising income
qualification for eligibility to live in CANDO housing
from earning between 51 and 80 percent of the median
income of the area, to earning up to 120 percent. The
reason for the change is that the state of Florida
funding programs for affordable housing permit such
development for households that earn up to 120 percent
of the average median income.
“From a practical perspective, this would permit any
developer that is pursuing state affordable housing
dollars to use them for these projects,” Fernandez wrote
the SunPost. “If the U.S. HUD level was
established [max of 80 percent of average median
income], then the project would not qualify for state
affordable housing funds.”
According to Fernandez, the median income for a single
person in the area is $39,100. What that means is that a
single cultural worker could earn up to 120 percent, or
$46,920 per year, and still qualify for housing in the
CANDO. The average hospitality worker, which includes
arts and cultural workers, earns a much lower median
income of $22,761 per year.
Attorney Michael Larkin was at the meeting representing
G-2 Development, Inc., which owns seven buildings in the
proposed CANDO.
“We are in total favor of this ordinance, but I don’t
think it gives developers sufficient incentives,” Larkin
said. He said he didn’t want to alter the timetable for
approving the CANDO, but asked for a future companion
ordinance allowing for, among other things, more height
and ground floor commercial usage.
Planning Director Jorge Gomez said Larkin’s requests
would be very difficult to get past state legislators
and residents.
Artist and Miami Beach resident Susana Sori read about
the meeting in the newspaper and came out to show her
support. She cautioned, though, that some visual artists
like painters need lots of space to work, and that these
incentives might not encourage developers to create
large studios. She also agreed that cafés and bookstores
and the like should be promoted to give artists places
to gather and feel a sense of community.
“I think this has the chance to bring in the human
aspect again,” Sori told the SunPost after the
meeting. “I don’t mind the bling bling, but there needs
to be a balance.”
After the vote Dermer spoke about how unusual it is for
a city to be inviting artists back, and that the
district is likely to become one of the most vibrant
areas in Miami Beach.
“This is a great marketing opportunity for any developer
who wants to be in that district,” Dermer said.
The next vote on the CANDO is likely to take place at
the Sept. 5 regular City Commission meeting. For further
details on the Cultural Arts Neighborhood District
Overlay, go to www.miamibeachfl.gov/CANDO.
çhome
Certain Appearances Permitted
Ethics Commission: Conflict of Interest Code Doesn’t
Apply to Miami Beach Housing Authority
By Angie Hargot
The Miami-Dade County Commission
on Ethics and Public Trust opined that Miami Beach’s
“certain appearances prohibited” ordinance does not
apply to the Housing Authority of the City of
Miami Beach.
The HACMB, which is assigned the task of finding and
creating affordable housing for Miami Beach residents,
also manages Section 8 Housing Program operations within
the city.
The question was whether or not HACMB chair Steven
Chaykin, an attorney specializing in litigation with law
firm Akerman Senterfitt, created a potentially
prohibited appearance for his law firm in the city of
Miami Beach because several lawyers in that firm come
before various Miami Beach boards and committees.
Originally enacted in 1997, the code forbids elected
officials, city board members and those who work at
their firms from lobbying other city board members and
officials.
On June 6, the city adjusted its “certain appearances
prohibited” ordinance, which addresses conflicts of
interest among board members and lobbyists, to close a
gap in language that many were calling “a loophole.”
Commissioner Michael Gongora felt this loophole
permitted his law firm of Becker & Poliakoff to lobby
city boards.
The Ethics Commission disagreed and the city added the
term “employee” to the ordinance’s language before
Gongora’s appeal made its way through the court system.
Gongora argued that the code precluded a “partner, joint
venturer or co-corporate shareholder.” He was an
“associate,” he contended, and even offered to change
his job title at his firm to an attorney “of
counsel.” That argument didn’t fly, however, and the
city, in what seemed like a pre-emptive strike in
anticipation of Gongora’s appeal, added the term
“employee.”
In the wake of the publicity surrounding the decisions,
on June 18 Eve Boutsis, general counsel for the HACMB,
sent a four-page letter to Commission on Ethics and
Public Trust Executive Director Robert Meyers. It asked
to “discuss a concern raised by my client” in the wake
of the city’s redrafting of the “certain appearances”
ordinance.
“The issue is whether the firm of Akerman Senterfitt can
continue to lobby the City of Miami Beach if Steven
Chaykin remains the chair (of the board) of the [HACMB],”
the letter read, and included three more pages of
argument as to why the firm should be allowed to
continue lobbying the city.
Commission on Ethics and Public Trust attorneys agreed
and the commission unanimously agreed.
In a five-point analysis of the legal merits of the
argument, staff attorney Victoria Frigo found that,
among other evidence, the HACMB is a municipal housing
authority created by the state of Florida; the agency
receives no funds from the city (the entirety of its
funding comes from the federal government), hires its
own employees, is regulated by the U.S. HUD program, and
“contracts and other dealings between the city of Miami
Beach and the HACMB are at arm’s length.”
“[The HACMB] is their own individual municipal
government, much like cities and counties and states,”
Miami Beach City Attorney Jose Smith told the SunPost.
“Our ordinance does not cover the Housing Authority.”
In summation, Frigo determined that the HACMB is a
subdivision of the state, and therefore the city
ordinance prohibiting certain appearances does not
apply.
Boutsis was on hand to offer a similar argument, which
board member, judge and former Miami Beach Mayor Seymour
Gelber accepted with caution.
“One thing that you omit is that members [of the HACMB]
are selected by the Miami Beach City Commission,” Gelber
said. “How that came about, I don’t know.”
However, offering evidence from his own days on the city
of Miami Beach dais, Gelber said, “I had no authority
over [the HACMB]. It was more of an adversarial
position.”
Gelber also disclosed early on that his son was an
attorney in the firm of Akerman Senterfitt, and inquired
as to whether he would need to recuse himself due to a
conflict of interest. Staff determined that while it was
in his right to recuse himself, it was not necessary
because Gelber himself did not benefit directly. That
his son might was not a conflict. State Rep. Daniel
Gelber, Seymour Gelber’s son, is an attorney “of
counsel” and shareholder at Akerman Senterfitt,
specializing in litigation.
At Tuesday’s meeting, the original matter that may have
prompted the city to change its ordinance was also
referenced.
Mayor David Dermer, who will be termed out of office in
November, hopes to recruit the city’s help in preserving
two of its ethics rules: the “certain appearances
prohibited” ordinance and one prohibiting political
contributions to candidates from vendors with city
contracts. Dermer has scheduled a discussion among
candidates that will take place at the July 11 City
Commission meeting, in the hopes of getting an item that
would require residents to approve changes to any ethics
ordinance on the Nov. 6 ballot.
Comments?
E-mail
angie@miamisunpost.com.
çhome
Sunny
Isles Beach
City to Publix: You Suck!Litigation
to Continue Over Submerged Land Rights
By Randy Abraham
The meeting was intended to
resolve a dispute between the city and a developer
seeking to build a new Publix grocery store.
But by the end of a special June 21 Sunny Isles Beach
City Commission meeting, city officials had called
Publix greedy and accused it of engaging in fraud.
In an ongoing dispute over how large a project Publix
Supermarkets and the Stiles Corp. are allowed to build
on the store’s current site at 18320 Collins Ave., the
grocery chain’s attorney said he would file an appeal
challenging what he called an “arbitrary and capricious”
violation of due process.
Publix and development firm Stiles plan to redevelop
that current Publix site with a larger Publix and a
21-story, mixed-use project featuring condominium units.
In December 2005, Publix filed a letter of intent with
the city for site plan approval of the project, and for
a request for unused transferable development rights
that would allow them to build a more sizable project
than baseline city codes permit.
At that time the Publix/Stiles team also made a
presentation on the project, which featured a modern
ground-floor grocery with a bayfront condo tower. The
proposal to replace the small and aging Publix was
enthusiastically received, as was the firm’s willingness
to participate in a city bonus program designed to
obtain land for an interior road near the site to
service a planned school. (The city’s program allows a
developer to add 1.5 feet of building for each donated
foot of frontage suitable for a roadway, up to a maximum
of 75 feet of additional height.) The developers agreed
to make the maximum donation of 50 feet of potential
roadway frontage in exchange for being allowed to add 75
feet of building height. They also agreed to pay into
other city incentive programs and purchase unused
development rights to add dwelling units and square
footage.
Late last year, however, the development team announced
they had purchased a 13.58-acre underwater parcel
adjacent to the development site. They submitted a
revised site plan that claimed the larger, assembled
property permits them by city code to build 378 units
and 747,489 square feet of development without obtaining
variances or purchasing TDRs. They also claimed a city
ordinance passed in 2004 allows them to include the
submerged land for development purposes. City officials
disagreed, insisting it was only meant to account for
platted land washed away by erosion.
“It was never the intent of the City Commission to
encompass submerged lands that were never platted and
which abut other properties,” said Mayor Norman Edelcup,
adding, “This City Commission is not in a position to
give greed an opportunity to flourish.”
City Attorney Hans Ottinot added that the firm has
failed to provide a legal survey of the submerged
parcel, casting doubt over its existence. “This is smoke
and mirrors,” said Ottinot.
Greenberg Traurig attorney Cliff Schulman, representing
Stiles and Publix, denied he or his clients had
attempted to mislead the city. ”You closed the barn
door, but the barn door was open,” said Schulman. While
conceding that the parcel was not platted, he stated,
“If you own it you can take advantage of it for purposes
of density and intensity.” Schulman added that the
application filed with the county’s Shoreline Review
Committee — whose approval of a planned marina is
required before the Publix zoning application can be
heard by the city – did not include plans for a marina
simply because his client was not yet ready to apply for
it. Schulman also noted that the city and county were
both provided with the same deed to the submerged
property.
Summarizing the city’s stance, legal co-counsel Ray
Abadin told city officials that Publix submitted two
different sets of plans – one for the county, and one
for the city. The information in the two filings is
inconsistent, he said. “Based on the evidence it’s clear
that Publix misrepresented the size of the parcel,” said
Abadin. “It clearly shows an attempt to hide the intent
of their plans: to develop a much larger
project.”
Resident George “Bud” Scholl said he will contact
community leaders and condo association heads to
organize a boycott of Publix. “I’d like to put Publix on
notice,” said Scholl. “It’s the only way to make them
understand.”
Edelcup said he would support the boycott. “I would be
remiss if I didn’t join them to protect the quality of
life in the city,” he said. “Maybe the strategy of
Publix and its attorney is to confuse everyone. It’s
apparent that Publix will continue to defy the will of
the people. There has to be a limit, a time to say ‘no’
to a developer.”
Afterward, a Publix spokesman said he had not heard of
the city’s decision to deny the firm’s appeal and could
not comment on the boycott threat. “Nothing’s changed at
this time. It’s too soon,” said Publix spokesperson
Dwaine Stevens.
çhome
Coral Gables
Subject to Public Influence
More Gables Employees Will Now Be Required to File
Financial Disclosure Statements
By Angie Hargot
The Miami-Dade Commission on
Ethics and Public Trust has ruled that seven more city
of Coral Gables employees will have to file financial
disclosure forms.
After the June 26 vote, the city’s chief plumbing
officer, chief electrical officer, historical
preservation officer, park superintendent, zoning
administrator, chief collector and deputy collector,
must now officially file financial disclosure forms
regarding sources of income. The opinion came about
after a Feb. 7 county memorandum drafted by Supervisor
of Elections Lester Sola, entitled “Financial Disclosure
Requirements,” advised county department directors to
require disclosure from employees whose responsibilities
include decisions “subject to public influence,”
regardless of job title. To comply, Coral Gables City
Clerk Walter Foeman solicited the ethics
commission opinion.
Already bound by the financial disclosure requirement
are elected officials; city and county attorneys; city
and county assistant attorneys; city and county
managers; assistant and special assistant city and
county managers; department directors and their
assistants; Miami-Dade police captains, majors, and
chiefs; building and zoning inspectors; and any other
employees with comparable duties.
Other positions that present the potential for
influence, according to county code, include those that
make decisions on compliance, secure property or
services for the city, or conduct inspections or
investigations.
Those criteria “[determine] if an individual would be
subject to public influence,” Victoria Frigo, staff
attorney for the Commission on Ethics, said June 26.
Frigo determined in her analysis that the city of Coral
Gables’ superintendent of greens and the public affairs
specialist would not be required to file financial
disclosures.
Those disclosure statements are due on July 1, as are
financial disclosure statements from the ethics
commission members themselves.
Comments?
E-mail
letters@miamisunpost.com.
