Biscayne Park Crime Statistics 2012- 2015

I’ve had the perception over the past couple of years that our crime rate in Biscayne Park has increased in frequency. Perhaps this is due to now having two sources reporting crime events (Crime Watch and Next Door) and receiving duplicate notices. Other than that, I’m not really sure where this “feeling or perception” has come from. Be that the case or not, please see below our crime statistics for the period from 2012-2015. These stats were obtained from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement- link here:  http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/cms/FSAC/UCR-Reports.aspx - under County and Municipal Offense Data.

For this review, we will focus more on an overview of the Total Crime Index, Crime Rate Percentage Index Change, and the Percentage of Cleared Cases. For those of you that want to see all of the various crime statistics broken down individually, please visit the above link.

Total Crime Index                   % Index Change (year-to-year)                        % of Cleared Cases  

2015- 65                                    +80.6%                                                                   1.5%

2014- 36                                    +33.3%                                                                   27.8%

2013- 27                                    -25.0%                                                                    85.2%

2012- 36                                    -25.0%                                                                    69.4%

So, based on the numbers, my suspicion was indeed correct in that we are experiencing a higher Total Crime Index (number of crimes) over the past several years. However, I will add that based on the other 39 municipalities in Dade County, our numbers remain fairly low. Last year, 2015, we were the 8^th lowest crime rate city in all of Dade County. 

Here are a couple more information points to consider. Last year we led ALL other Dade County municipalities in the increase of crime rate index change 2014-2015 (+80.6%) and had the lowest % of cases cleared at just 1.5%. The average for all other cities in cases cleared in 2015 was 20.8%.

 





Let’s now look at some other local municipalities for comparison:

Total Crime Index                     % Index Change (year-to-year)                     % of Cleared Cases

2015

El Portal- 94                               -13.0%                                                                    9.6%

Miami Shores- 622                   +5.8%                                                                     15.0%

Aventura- 2172                         +5.7%                                                                     35.4%

North Miami- 3170                   -8.2%                                                                     15.2%

Surfside- 137                            -13.3%                                                                     28.5%

Bal Harbour- 95                       -12.0%                                                                     36.8%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------               

Of course, the overall population is higher in all the cities excluding El Portal and Bal Harbour.

Population Total

Biscayne Park= 3,147

El Portal= 2,334

Miami Shores= 10,806

Aventura= 37,473

North Miami= 62,380

Surfside= 5,703

Bal Harbour= 2,778

Proactive or Reactive?

This is a point that has been brought up by residents during the past several Crime Watch Meetings. Meaning, how are we planning and preparing to deal with a higher crime rate frequency? What, if any change of strategy are we (our police department) putting into action?

 

The answer that we have received from our Police Chief is to “remember to lock your doors as that is contributing to 95% of all of our crime.” And that response sounds reasonable. It boggles my mind to think that anyone in this day and age doesn’t know to lock up their cars and homes.

But, what if it’s now “too late” for simply the locking of windows and doors as it seems that the word has gotten out to the criminal element that Biscayne Park is an easy target. And if this is true, then how do we deal with this situation?  To review, our crime rate has increased by +33.3% in 2014 and by +80.6% during 2015.

During 2015 we had (3) Robberies – (19) Burglaries – (42) Larcenies and (1) car theft.

For 2012    there was (1) Robbery- (14) Burglaries- (8) Larcenies and (0) car thefts.

Beyond providing the statistics, I have no answers as to what we should expect in future or how to turn the tide on this rising crime activity within our Community. Our police department represents 39% of our overall budget and is by far our largest tax expense. For any specific questions, I would suggest to contact our police department directly. For more general questions and or discussion, please feel free to use the comment section below.

Standing Watch,

Milton Hunter

The Biscayne Parker

miltonhunter@gmail.com



 UPDATE: Friday 7/8/2016

All,
For whatever the reason, the discussion of this blog post is taking place on another location- the Nextdoor site. For anyone wishing to follow the comments from our neighbors and aren't signed up  there, please click here:

https://biscaynepark.nextdoor.com/news_feed/?lc=7741&is=nce&mobile_deeplink_data=action%3Dview_post%26post%3D28252423&s=&link_source_user_id=7317286&post=28252423&ct=Kx1oKeYtyp76gS7iPL3vOgzQmlQgh-ZPM8lN8DmBTx77O4XULIZIMLy_dk0Q1uWY- copy and paste into your browser if needed. 









Code Poll Results





Our first poll on the Biggest Code Pet Peeves has now closed. Below are the results:
 

Biggest Code Pet Peeves

1)      Parking on front grass = 60%

2)      Trash piles (on wrong days) = 43%

3)      Dirty roofs and awnings = 34%

4)      Tie/ Overgrown weeds and mildewed paint and trim = 26%

5)      Commercial vehicle parking = 17%

So, here we have it based on those who participated in the poll. Fortunately, we are (or will soon be) addressing several of the largest issues such as parking on the front grass (non-driveway area) I appreciate the actions taken by our Commission to enhance our codes and improve the look (and hopefully property values) of our Village.  

Yard trash piles out early still seem to be an issue when looking around the Village on Saturdays. So, let’s all do our part with our property maintenance and look around to see what we can do to help beautify our neighborhood.

 

So, what are your thoughts regarding the code poll? Would you like to see additional polls offered? If so, please feel free to comment below with what poll subjects you would like to see posted. 

Standing Watch,

Milton Hunter- The Biscayne Parker

miltonhunter@gmail.com



Best. Arbor. Day. Ever!



Last weekend we had our Commissioners and volunteer residents start the re-landscaping project at our Log Cabin in honor of Arbor Day. What a difference a few well-placed trees can make!  
 

I wanted to give a special shout out to Rox Ross for her MLK funding drive which allowed for this day to happen. Also, to Dan Keys, Barbara Kuhl and the rest of our P&P Board for their design ideas and support.

As you can see, it was truly a group effort.

Recap of Building Projects Cost Overruns

Don’t Shoot the Messenger! The messenger is NOT the problem… The Problem is The Problem.

Last night there was a Special Commission meeting to discuss the budget overruns on the two building projects. This was requested by Commissioner Anderson as the original item (regular April Commission meeting) was placed near the end of the agenda and due to the late hour, few residents would have been there to hear it. But, before we take a step forward… we must first take a step back to understand the situation and problems that arose from what looks to be a lack of fiscal oversight.

In advance of the April meeting (disclosed in the backup), it was discovered that the alleged total for both buildings was $1,800,147.24. To repeat, one million eight hundred thousand dollars! I use the word “alleged “due to the fact it appears that there were project expenses (such as the landscaping for the log cabin and others) that were not included in the reconciliation. Why? Beats me.

The data provided in the reconciliation statements is very confusing, but regardless, the point remains the same. To that end Chuck Ross has reconstructed the numbers for both projects and listed below is a brief overview.

 First, adding back the $89,000.00 fee for the architect (that somehow was missed in the manager’s feasibility study to borrow the $350K loan- how does that happen?) and the adjusted contingencies, we started out the project underfunded by $126,891.00 [7.64%] back in May, 2015. This was before we ever broke ground. As to the cost overrun, Chuck is coming up with $161,216.00 or [8.85%] The funding shortage of $126,891.00 was the leading cause of the $161,216.00 overall shortage.  There were unexpected post construction credits and grants that reduced the shortage by $34,600.00 to $126,616.00 - not the $115,213.24 [6%] as claimed by the manager in her report.

However, as mentioned above, there are some costs yet to be identified. To reflect a shortage of $115,123.24 net of the unexpected credits and omitting certain costs is misleading.  Clearly the planning was suspect.

Two points to learn from this:

First, the manager should have recalculated the funding requirements after the final bids for the Log Cabin project had been accepted.  The error (funding shortage) would likely have been discovered and adjustments would have been made to the project. 

Second, the manager did not report to the Commission the change orders as the project progressed.  Again, the error would likely have been discovered.

Since the Commission was not made aware of the additional costs, they did not have the opportunity to assess changes that could or should be made to the project to take into account the additional funds required to complete the project.    

Total expenditures Village Hall= $969,909.80

Total expenditures Log Cabin=   $830,237.44

Again, this is assuming that the reconciliation total costs are complete and accurate. This number was a shocker as how many residents even knew about the budget for the two buildings? I know that Commissioner Ross had been asking for progress reports and financial updates for many months only to be delayed by the manager. It was never fully disclosed to the public (taxpayers) until again, months after the fact.

And herein lays part of the problem. Where was the fiduciary responsibility from both the manager and our Commissioners during the process?  Why was there no degree of any fiscal restraint when the budget overruns were first discovered? And who was responsible for signing off on all of this overage?

 Section 4.07. - Appropriation amendments during the fiscal year.

 (B) If, at any time during the fiscal year, it appears probable to the Manager that the revenues available will be insufficient to meet the amounts appropriated, s/he shall report to the Commission in writing without delay, indicating the estimated amount of the deficit, and his/her recommendations as to the remedial action to be taken. The Commission shall then take such action, as it deems appropriate, to prevent any deficit spending not covered by adequate unappropriated financial resources including reserves.  

In short, this just didn’t happen. This wasn’t an “option” but a Charter requirement. The manager did not publicly address the budget overages, without delay, and instead ostensibly just made her own decision to keep spending unappropriated Village funds. Nor was this Charter requirement adhered to on another potential cost overrun of approx. 50% (over the grant amount) towards the new Village Signage. (half of which, by the way, have not been installed due to running out of money by the inclusion of  solar lighting that somehow got added to the project after the fact. Solar lighting within our dense tree canopy… was this a good idea?)  Especially after just running over budget on your prior project? Do you see a trend here?

It seems as if our Commissioners bought into the paradigm of “not micromanaging the manager” to the degree of simply providing no fiscal management or institutional oversight at all! Or, in fairness, of potentially being rebuked by the manager if efforts were indeed attempted citing “I’m the professional here, don’t micromanage me,” etc. Further, there seems to be some misunderstanding of what the term “micromanaging” means.

Definition of micromanage

To try to control or manage all the small parts of (something, such as an activity) in a way that is usually not wanted or that causes problems

Definition of oversight

Watchful and responsible care  b:  regulatory supervision

See the difference?  But for whatever the reason, blind trust was offered and we now bear the cost for such lack of judgement. For me it's the process, poor planning, and the lack of transparency of not informing everyone what these buildings were actually costing us... until it was too late. The bottom line is always what is this going to cost us – the Biscayne Park taxpayers.

We hired a first-time manager who had over the past year demonstrated varying concerns regarding both her attitude and work performance. These concerns were shared with our Mayor and other Commissioners, yet were seemingly overlooked. Remarkably, some STILL seem to want to overlook these problems. Per her employment agreement “The Village Commission agrees to annually review the performance of the Village Manager prior to the anniversary date of this Contract.” This should have been done prior to last October… yet it didn’t happen. Why?

In my opinion this is cause for concern moving forward. Trust should be earned over a period of time based on deeds and performance… not just given freely to any new Village employee.

I can only hope that we’ve learned a hard lesson based on this experience as we now move on to our next manager. (Oh, and sorry for burying the lead, for anyone who didn’t already know, our manager has resigned effective April 29^th.)

Which leads me to this:

Don’t Shoot the Messenger! The messenger is NOT the problem… The Problem is The Problem. Deal with it and shoulder the responsibility you chose when you sought public office.

To suggest that our residents that pointed out legitimate concerns about the manager were The Problem is in truth, well… insulting. Insulting and delusional. Deflecting Problems does not solve The Problem. Pointing out Problems does not create The Problem. Lack of action only further increases The Problem. Our residents have every right to expect better results and representation from our elected officials.

The manager will soon be gone, yet we remain to pick up the pieces. It’s time for our leaders to lead.

Standing Watch-

Milton Hunter

The Biscayne Parker

miltonhunter@gmail.com

P.S. The videos of the April meetings are now up on YouTube. Links below:

April 5^th Regular Commission meeting- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJirEBdFl_s

April 11^th Special Meeting/ manager resignation- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THWhaF-ymPk

April 20^th Special Meeting- Buildings budget recap- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJAq-Js2YmI



What 18" of Rain Can Look Like…

On January 6th we posted a review of the No Name Storm that affected Biscayne Park back in October, 2000. This weather event stands as the only example of any storm water flooding experienced in our Village dating back over 40 years.
In scanning the news this morning, I noticed that Houston, TX experienced a somewhat comparable storm event yesterday. Due to the similarities, I thought to post a couple of pictures to illustrate the differences between the two areas. (Please feel free to refer back to the original article posted 1/6/2016 for additional charts and data)

4/18/16: HOUSTON (Reuters) - Torrential rainfall totaling 18 inches (46 cm) pummeled Houston on Monday, causing floods that were believed responsible for five deaths. More than 1,000 homes were flooded in Harris County, which contains Houston, and there were more than 1,000 water rescues as scores of neighborhoods and roads were hit by rushing water.

Fortunately for us, we didn't have 1000 homes flood nor did we require any water rescues. As the No Name Storm did claim two lives, no lives were lost here in Biscayne Park. And for this we should all be thankful. Below is a re-post of one of the pictures taken on 118 St. and 10th Ave.

 

Standing Watch,

Milton Hunter-The Biscayne Parker

miltonhunter@gmail.com

 

 

 

  

Code Notice...A Cautionary Tale





I recently had dealings with our code enforcement department. After review, I thought it would potentially be helpfully to others to share my experience... as a cautionary tale.  Now, before I begin, let me go on record stating that I have been an advocate for strengthening our codes for years. Mostly in the area of visual blight issues. So, the encounter you’ll read below is not born out of being “anti-code,” but moreover a description of the questionable performance of our code department in addressing a resident over what looks to be a misguided action.

 

On January 11, 2016: I received a visit from our code officer Reggie White. He handed me a courtesy notice along with one sheet of paper citing “part” of our muni code referring to fences and walls.  For those of you who are not familiar with my property, I have included two photos of the area and the concrete block wall in question. See below:  

As you can see, I have no neighbors on either side and the adjoining parcels are considered green spaces.  The alleged violation was, and I quote, “Please paint the entire wall the same color as your house. Also, please repair broken area of the wall in back of your house and leave a smooth finish or texture on both faces of the wall.”  I proceeded to question him on the color and the texture demands, (i.e. grandfather rule) as I’ve never heard of such a thing and the wall has been white and maintained the same finish or texture since it was built in 1948. He stated that he’d need to further look into that and get back to me.

After this meeting I myself looked up the entirety of our code addressing fences and walls and sent him the following email:

From: Gmail [mailto:miltonhunter@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 9:35 AM
To: code@biscayneparkfl.gov
Subject: Follow up

Good morning Reggie,

Pursuant to our visit yesterday I have a couple of questions. The one page you provided me with didn't reflect the entirety of the muni code, specifically Article 11.6.6 addressing Nonconforming fences and walls. I have included this below for your review:

BP Muni code: Fences

·         11.6.6

Nonconforming fences and walls. Any fence or wall which has been properly permitted and approved by the village prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 2011-2, or which existed prior to Ordinance No. 24 (S. 1988) and which does not comply with the requirements of this ordinance, shall be considered a legal, nonconforming structure. Such nonconforming fence or wall may be continued until such fence or wall has deteriorated to the extent of more than twenty-five (25) percent of the structure or has been damaged by more than fifty (50) percent of the structure. 

My exterior concreate block wall is (to the best of my knowledge) original construction and was allegedly properly permitted and approved by the Village at that time, date 1948. I have a photograph circa 1968 which illustrates that the wall was and has maintained to be white in color. So, my understanding is that it would fall into the above category.

My questions are as follows:

1.      You highlighted section 11.6.3 (b) (ii) "Concrete block is to be stuccoed with a smooth stucco finish or texture on all faces that reflects compatibility with the finish of the dwelling. Walls constructed of decorative masonry units shall be of a uniform type and color.  Any exterior finish I believe is covered under section 11.6.6- see above.

2.      Where in our code did you find the language of having to change the color of an established structure that pre-dates Ordinance 2011-2 and No. 24 (S.1988)? I believe that this is a grandfathered issue covered under the legal nonconforming fence and wall ordinance.
 

I will wait for answers to these questions.

Best,

Milton Hunter

646 NE 114 St.

I then made a call to a member of our Planning and Zoning board to get another opinion on all of this. And to my surprise, he had already gotten a call from Reggie also seeking council and his opinion on the situation. What I found odd was why was our code officer calling a member of the P&Z board for advice? Where was his immediate supervisor or other staff support members?                                                        

On January 13^th: I received a “new and amended” courtesy notice. [ASIDE] there were no answers provided to me concerning the questions posed in my email from the day before [END ASIDE] It read: “Please repair and paint the wall that borders your house. The entire wall must be re-painted to a color that is compatible in relation to the dwelling/house. Also, all rot and cracks must be properly repaired on the wall. The wall must be straight and have a smooth stucco finish on both sides.”  

Oof, now I’m getting really confused… and begin to question what, or who is really behind this. So now it’s not “the same color of your house” but a “compatible” color. Also, his tone seems to be more aggressive.

Let’s pause a moment and take a look back at the pictures provided above. You’ll see that my house trim is white and the condition of the paint on my wall.   

Further, there is no “rot” present (not sure where that came from) and Reggie seemingly continues to ignore the language of Section 11.6.6 -Nonconforming fences and walls.  As well, I’m not so sure that our code officer is tasked with giving an opinion on what is a compatible color or not. Don’t we already have a board for this when first getting colors approved? And by the way, white is on their pre-approved color list. 

Moving along, I scheduled for the repair to be done. After the repaired areas had cured, I touched them up with white paint and, for my part, was willing to call it a day on all of this.

Below are the before and after pictures of the wall repair in the back:

 

However, the Village had other plans as on February 17^th, I received a Notice of Violation and Notice of Hearing. And the nature of the alleged violation: “The wall is not of compatible design and color in relation to the dwelling. Concreate block is not stuccoed with a smooth finish or texture on all faces that reflects compatibility with the finish of the dwelling.”

Really?  Once again I’ll state that the wall “pre-dates” ordinance 2011-12 and ordinance 24 (1988) and as such is a legal non-conforming structure. It’s completely straightforward. My thinking is now WHY our code officer (or whoever is truly pushing this action) continues to press the issue and WHY is this relevant section of our code continually being ignored?

February 29th: Next I find yet another courtesy notice taped to my front entranceway. The house number was incorrect but you know, it seemed fitting based on the absurdity of this entire ordeal so far.  It read: “Please apply for and obtain a paint permit for the wall on the property.” (This being for the touch up painting I did to the repaired area).

I had 48 hours to comply.  (Which I elected not to do as I was prepared to take this matter up in front of the Code Compliance board on March 14^th)

At this stage I gathered up all of my paperwork, photos and was awaiting the Code Hearing date of March 14^th.  Here I would be able to make my case and seek an objective decision from the board. 
 

Yet on March 8^th I received an email from our code officer stating “I brought the wall issue to the manager’s attention yesterday and we both agreed that the repairs done was enough to be in compliance. There will also be no violation for painting the wall without a permit. I’m going to close the case and note that you are in compliance. I’ll send you and affidavit of compliance in the mail shortly.”

So neighbors, what to make of all of this? There are so many questions to consider…was this a case of our code officer simply not knowing or understanding the code in question? Or is this a case of “selective enforcement?” It is this type of situation that leads residents to feel singled out and does more harm than good for our community.

Personally I have a hard time trying to write this off as a simple “mistake” due to me pointing out and verbally explaining the relevant section of our code (Section 11.6.6) to Reggie… on Day 2.

And if indeed it is the latter, then we have an altogether different problem. And one much larger than one resident’s ordeal with the missteps of our code department. The question now becomes WHO was behind this and WHY was it allowed to persist for nearly two months?

Consider this:

·         Where was the oversight by our Manager or department supervisor?

·         What training has been provided (or will be provided) for our code officer to alleviate embarrassments such as this one from occurring again?

·         Why was our code officer seeking direction from a P&Z member (or others) not associated directly with his department? 

·         Why was the citation(s) dismissed and closed by the Code Officer together with the Manager rather than coming before the Board for a vote which is the usual procedure even when cases are dismissed and closed?

·          How much Village time and money were ultimately wasted on this failed aborted Village action?

Why would the Village drop the case less than 1 week before the hearing date? Was I really now in compliance? After all, I did not fulfil the multiple demands made of repainting the entire wall (whatever the color) nor in resurfacing the texture or straightening the back wall section. All of these points were stubbornly defended without consideration or explanation up until March 8^th.

To be clear, no resident should have to put up with two months of badgering - especially after doing the research and providing the documentation from our Code of Ordinances showing this citation was not warranted.  Code Enforcement is too important to our Village for anyone to receive a citation out of ignorance or lack of research on the part of staff. 

March 14^th: As I had not yet received the affidavit of compliance in the mail (and my trust in this department is suspect at this point) I attended the meeting with all of my support documentations. You know, just in case. And as advertised, my case was scrubbed from the agenda. As if it never existed in the first place...

Interesting enough however is that there was another case mentioned where a work related repair area would require re-painting. The board and code officer seemingly routinely agreed that no paint permit would be required…Hmm… but this was done in front of the board, not behind closed doors.

So, two months later what was the purpose of all of this? For me, it seems obvious that additional training and oversight for this department needs to be put into place as the current administration is flawed.

The point of me making this information public is twofold. One is to illustrate the inner workings of the department and to clarify the mistakes that were made. There needs to be some form of accountability for the actions taken. Secondly, to inform all of our readers to do your own independent homework and to question courtesy notices that don’t make sense to you. Mistakes can be made… as observed herein.

 

Standing Watch,

Milton Hunter- The Biscayne Parker