The Neighborhood Protection Ordinance Misdirection

I recently received a Village of Palmetto Bay Public Hearing notice for a February 25th meeting   Usually, I toss these in the trash, but this one caught my eye because it relates to Coral Reef Park's tennis courts.    The Village has set up a Public Hearing to address revisions to the master plan of the park to include two new batting cages, replacement of tennis court lighting and the addition of benched seating areas.     A little research reveals that the Neighborhood Protection Ordinance (NPO,) passed by the Mayor and council in November, or thereabouts, prohibits the tennis court lighting to be replaced at their current height.   To meet the requirements of their own ordinance the Village must reduce the height of the new light poles for a cost that is budgeted at whopping $250,000.  Or they can just take the easy way out and exempt themselves from the rules that they demanded be in place to protect the residential character of the Village. Best I can tell, the Village is not asking for a one-time variance for this park update, but to exclude the park completely from the new NPO in perpetuity. They are attempting to do at tonight's council meeting - see Item 12C on their posted agenda.   The last council's main thrust - spearheaded by Joan Lindsey, backed by Mayor Shelly Stanczyk and their ousted pal Brian Pariser  - consumed over six months, hundreds of man hours and thousands of dollars of taxpayer's money working to pass their magnum opus of activist government:  the Neighborhood Protection Ordinance.  This was all done, as we were told, to protect the residents of Palmetto Bay from the ills (light pollution, noise pollution, traffic, garbage collection, etc.) associated with activities that occur on large parcels of land in residential areas that are not residentially zoned.   They claimed repeatedly that they were not targeting churches and schools.  And if the Village is successful in excluding Coral Reef Park and the other parks from the NPO, what properties does the NPO regulate?   The answer remains the same: Churches and Schools -- the same Churches and Schools that the Ms. Stanczyk and Councilperson Lindsay have been out to punish since their Palmer Trinity litigation defeat.   The true tragedy of this situation is the shamelessness on display by certain council members.  The last council created the crippling NPO targeting large parcels of land and was able to craft ballot language which was opposite of the NPO's true discriminatory intent.  This resluted in easy voter passage.  Proponents on and off the council have touted that the NPO was passed by a substantial voter margin -- a sure sign of rock-solid backing by the public. But now that the Village  finds itself to be subject to the parameters it has created for others, they can't stand the overbearing regulation.  So they plan to rewrite the rules only for themselves.   One or two or three or four or all five of the council should do the honorable thing and speak out at length against this deceptive dishonorable banana-republic-style action.  Someone up there on the council needs to make the plea and decry the utter duplicity and unfaithfulness to the public trust.  Maybe it will be Mr. Fiore -- he has shown to be a minority voice on the right side of issues time and time again.  Or Mr. Dubois who has demonstrated himself in short order to be a sensible breath of fresh air.  Or maybe Mr. Shaffer has this opportunity to cement his reputation of a man of honor early on.  But it would be best if it was all three.  Three votes to two.    What is at stake is a basic ethic and American value: the law must be applied uniformly. All large parcels of land must be subject to the rule of law or there must be relief uniformly applied to all affected parties.  If the Village gets exempt, so should the Churches and Schools.  If not the Churches and Schools, then not the Village either.  This attempt at preferential treatment smacks of discrimination.  How many times had we heard from the prior council that the 'rule of law' must be followed without exception?  Make no exception here, ladies and gentlemen of the council.  May the rule of law be applied uniformly -- no exemption for the Village without equal protection under the law for all other affected properties whether private or public. An American bedrock principle -- be sure to stand by it.   Co-Written by David Singer and Douglas Zargham.