The Fallout of the FTAA 

It wasn’t until some demonstrators decided to do an “unauthorized march” that events went sour.   

It isn’t over.

The Free Trade Area of the Americas summit may have ended last week but the repercussions of how Miami dealt with demonstrators on Thursday and Friday will likely be felt in the months to come.

“[Miami] Police Chief [John] Timoney claimed officers acted with restraint,” said Marc Steier, an attorney affiliated with Miami Activist Defense, in a “Stop FTAA” press release.  “This assessment goes against the eyewitness reports of hundreds of people on the streets.  [Miami] Mayor [Manny] Diaz even had the gall to say that Miami was a ‘model for homeland security.’ He should know that his so-called ‘security,’ accomplished through assault and denial of rights for hundreds of people will be met with appropriate legal action. We’ll see how his ‘model’ holds up in court.”

But it isn’t just far left anti-FTAA demonstrators who are vowing action for conduct by the police.  Leaders from the AFL-CIO who also demonstrated against the FTAA, but in self-policed, permitted actions, were incensed as well at some of their members—some of whom were elderly—being rounded up and stunned with rubber bullets for no apparent reason.  “You are going to hear from us loud and clear over the next few weeks and months,” Ron Judd, regional director for the AFL-CIO, told the Miami Herald’s Jim Defede, who added that the group was considering filing suit against the city or possibly asking the Department of Justice to do its own investigation of the incidents.

Until last Thursday it seemed that the FTAA would be a quiet affair.  There were far fewer demonstrators than the predicted 20,000 to 100,000.  (By some accounts the number of demonstrators in Miami peaked at 10,000 union demonstrators and maybe 2,000 other anti-FTAAers.) And, for a while, the police and demonstrators, while eyeing each other suspiciously, gave one and other a wide birth.  A demonstration in front of the INS building, for example, went without a hitch.  So too did a march from Ft. Lauderdale to Miami.

It wasn’t until some demonstrators decided to do an “unauthorized march” that events went sour.  A few hundred protesters who marched to the fence – and virtually anyone else around – were repelled with extreme force by 2,000 police. 

Using 20/20 as hindsight we can see how something like this is bound to happen. Aside from Timoney’s reputation for preserving civil order at the expense of civil rights (if you are a demonstrator), the political leadership of Miami and the surrounding areas (including Miami Beach) gave an okay to do whatever it took to keep the peace when they passed a series of laws banning PCV pipes and other materials.  (Miami had even outlawed carrying golf balls.)

In a way it’s a pattern in this county: differing views are tolerated only so long as they don’t interfere with what we perceive as our economic development. A breach of the police lines surrounding the Hotel-Intercontinental by civil disobedience demonstrators, some of whom were not as non-violent as they claimed, would have been embarrassing to say the least. It may have also hurt Miami’s already slim chances of being home to the secretariat of the FTAA. That can’t be allowed, local leaders said, the FTAA making Miami its home will be a huge economic boon to the city.  And the police, as enforcers to our civic leaders’ will, replied: “yes sirs.”

But then again, it could have gone the other way, it could be argued.  The police could have lost control as in Seattle.  Property could have been damaged.  A lot more people could have been hurt.

In the coming days and weeks various assertions – and perhaps new information about what happened in the demonstrations – will be released by local leaders and the police. And so, too, will there be more information and charges made by those who demonstrated.

Because the FTAA summit isn’t over for Miami.

Fee Structure Should Not Restrict Access to Community Center 

While the fees are not exorbitant at first glance, this is, after all, a community center built and maintained with taxpayer dollars. 

When the City of Aventura’s Community Recreation Center opened earlier this year, it was a positive development for the city. For years, the perception of Aventura was of a dense, suburban neighborhood dominated by retirees and elderly residents. While that perception might have been based on the Aventura of a decade or more ago, it does not hold true today. In that sense, the Community Recreation Center was both a victory for the residents of Aventura, as well as for the City of Excellence’s image in the minds of its South Florida neighbors.

Moreover, both before and after the Community Center opened, city leaders including the Aventura City Commission openly discussed the desire of the City to meet the needs of the burgeoning number of young families with children moving into Aventura. This was the impetus behind the founding of the Aventura Charter Elementary School (ACES), plans for a middle school, and the City’s well-managed effort to refurbish, expand and create park spaces.

That said shortly after the Community Recreation Center opened, a number of residents began to complain about the Community Recreation Center’s fee structure, feeling that it was prohibitive for some residents. In fact, a city commission candidate in the most recent city election, Sid Gersh, even made addressing the Community Recreation Center one of the items on his platform when he ran (unsuccessfully) for Aventura commissioner.

Aventura’s Community Recreation Center has a two-tiered fee structure. Residency does not assure immediate membership – it only permits membership application. A family of up to six members pays a $200 annual fee or a $140 six-month fee for membership. A couple pays $160 a year or $112 for a six-month period. Individual membership fees are $100 a year or $70 for six months.

While not exorbitant at first glance, this is, after all, a community center built and maintained with taxpayer dollars. Yet, perhaps, given the price of real estate and the numerous amenities included in the state-of-the-art facility, the membership fee alone might not be off-putting.

However, membership to the Community Recreation Center provides access and use of the facilities and a certain number of free classes/activities offered either ongoing or at different times of the year. The benefit of the latter can’t be downplayed. Among the free activities (for members only) are some after school programs for young children, Chess/Checkers Club, Bridge Club, Scrabble, some art classes and numerous basic lectures and discussions on a nicely broad range of topics.

 But the Community Recreation Center offers numerous other courses, activities and programs throughout each month with a fee attached to them. The fee for a short series of classes, workshops or other activities can range from $20 to $80, and there may or may not be any materials expenses associated with these programs.

 Now there is nothing wrong with a financially prudent municipality trying to offset the expenses of a community center. Like performing arts centers and other arts institutions, community centers don’t generally generate a profit for the municipality that owns it. On the contrary, such institutions often become drains on much-needed city resources.

That said, SunPost believes that a membership fee in addition to certain program fees makes the Community Recreation Center prohibitive to some groups in the community. First and foremost, there are those economically disadvantaged residents (including but not consisting entirely of remaining retirees) who do not, as a rule, have much of a recreation budget with which to work. Yet, as residents of Aventura do they not also contribute to city coffers?

Secondly, there are seasonal residents. Maybe once upon a time in Aventura, “seasonal resident” translated entirely as “snowbird,” but the landscape is different today. Seasonal residents today come not just from the northeast, but also from South America, Europe and elsewhere around the globe. Many may not spend an entire six months in the city or be willing to lay out such fees for short-term or occasional use. Do not children residing here for, say, two months out of the year, deserve access to the Community Recreation Center? Considering that part-time residents pay their full share of property taxes and yet contribute very little to the wear and tear of city infrastructure or indulge in many city services, SunPost believes that they do.

Different municipalities employ different fee structures to support their community centers, and the City of Aventura might well be served by conducting a comparative study with its neighbors to see if there is something to be learned from them. Perhaps residency and a small per-visit fee would make the Community Recreation Center more accessible. Perhaps all residents should be members based on residency alone; with fees being applied not to self-led services, but to all those utilizing city staff, contract service providers or other city resources. There are countless ways to develop a fee structure that makes the Community Recreation Center a true community asset – that is, one shared in by all residents.

SunPost has full confidence that should the city wisely examine this issue in the future, the same financial responsibility that Aventura has regularly shown can be applied to the issue of the Community Recreation Center – while at the same time, opening the facility up to the maximum possible number of residents.