In a recent edition of the Pinecrest Tribune, Mr. Kenneth Bluh wrote a column questioning Miami-Dade County Manager Merrett R. Stierheim's stance on incorporation since the county manager "actively participated in the creation of Pinecrest." Mr. Bluh further claims that the county manager is treating individuals like him as "second class citizens" by offering the town concept as one of the alternatives to incorporation. The following is the county manager's response.

I was disappointed to read Mr. Kenneth Bluh's column in the April 20-26 issue of the Pinecrest Tribune. Mr. Bluh wrote that his question to me is "begging for an answer." While he begs for an answer, he also begs the issue. I had thought that while Mr. Bluh disagreed with my views on incorporation, he at least had some inkling of the gravity of the issue. Clever rhetoric falls short of an honest discussion of the issue.

While I didn't return as county manager to deal exclusively with the problems of unplanned, piecemeal incorporation, I quickly concluded that the issue needed attention because it was fraught with serious financial implications for hundreds of thousands of adversely affected citizens who had no vote on proposed incorporation. Simply stated, the continued incorporation of affluent (tax donor) areas without financial support or revenue sharing for the remaining unincorporated areas is a blueprint for disaster. Poorer tax recipient neighborhoods won't be able to support needed police services without excessive tax increases.

First let me clarify Mr. Bluh's misunderstanding. Mr. Bluh implied that because I sat on the Charter Commission for Pinecrest that I promoted the incorporation of Pinecrest. The truth is that I was asked by then Miami-Dade Commissioner Maurice Ferre and did serve on the Pinecrest Charter Commission. This occurred after the vote on whether to create the city. Prior to that time, I was not a member of the committee seeking to incorporate Pinecrest, nor did I participate in their meetings. After the initial vote was held, I believed it was important to contribute my governmental experience to the process of drafting the new city's charter. I did so out of concern for the future of the proposed new city that I happen to live in and I later chaired the search committee for the existing city manager.

Perhaps Mr. Bluh is unaware that as a voting member of the Pinecrest Charter Committee I made a motion to have ten percent of the new city's revenues set aside to be spent on crime prevention programs outside of the city's borders. I was then, and am even more so now, convinced that affluent areas leaving the unincorporated area have an obligation to ensure that the remaining unincorporated area does not suffer by the loss of donor tax dollars. I regret that I did not get a second to that motion. If I had known then just how serious this problem is for poorer unincorporated areas I would have fought harder on that issue. I would certainly have had serious public reservations about voting for a charter that did not contain some provision for the incorporated areas that Pinecrest left behind.

Today, Pinecrest is doing just fine, has low taxes with ample reserves and plenty of dollars for municipal improvements because the city captured these donor tax dollars that were previously available to support services in other unincorporated neighborhoods as well as healthy growth in its tax base. Selfishly, that is great for Pinecrest residents but it was a bad deal for the remaining unincorporated area citizens who had no vote on their adverse tax impact. And, the oft-heard argument about how Pinecrest's tax base has expanded doesn't help residents of unincorporated Miami-Dade because Pinecrest's taxpayers no longer pay unincorporated taxes.

Mr. Bluh stated that he can't understand how I can stand in front of representatives of areas seeking incorporation and say that, out of fairness, I do not want to see new cities carve out high value, affluent areas if in the process the areas they leave behind face higher taxes or reduced services. That is precisely what Pinecrest did when I was not county manager and that seems to be the point Mr. Bluh and others who think like him seem to miss. We must learn from our mistakes. As county manager I am now acutely aware of the impact that the four most recent incorporations have had and of the potential impact if affluent donor areas continue to pull out of the unincorporated area with no financial provision for neighborhoods left behind.

I have repeatedly stated that I am not opposed to incorporation because I believe that that government closest to the people governs best. That does not mean however, that I support creating closer governments for one group of people at the expense of others who do not have a vote on the matter. That is what has happened with the four most recent incorporations and I do not want to see it happen again through unplanned, piecemeal incorporation.

Mr. Bluh's basic argument is "they did it, why can't we?" One of the responsibilities of government is to improve processes and standards as new information is available and we learn from past actions. Should we weaken our building code because older buildings weren't built so strong or allow dumping upstream, even if it hurts those downstream, because we previously did not have environmental regulations? I have difficulty with the argument "they did it, why can't I?"

Mr. Bluh states that the county government should focus on countywide responsibilities and leave local services to municipalities. My position has consistently been that if the incorporation of an area has minimal fiscal impact on the unincorporated area it leaves behind and residents of the area vote to create the new city, and if vital regional service issues are supported, then that area should be allowed to go through the incorporation process.

I have also proposed alternatives. In addition to financial mitigation or revenue sharing as a solution we recognized that residents in some areas might not want to become a full city, with all of the costs and responsibilities that implies, so we proposed the town concept which would provide for elected officials with control over local services and related issues. Mr. Bluh and others in the incorporation movement are focused on their own narrow agenda and seem to have difficulty contemplating alternatives. "Second class citizens" is a red herring to confuse readers to the fact that incorporation affects all of us. The fact is that the "second class citizens" are really all those citizens who did not get an opportunity to voice their opinion on how piecemeal incorporation would affect their taxes and neighborhoods. Seen from that vantage point, Mr. Bluh's incorporation movement is more elitist than participatory.

In the interest of all of our citizens and not just members of LINC (Let's Incorporate Now Coalition) my question to you, Mr. Bluh, isn't it time to replace simplistic and misleading rhetoric with good faith discussion and creative thinking? Isn't it time to admit that all of us are capable of learning from the past and are not doomed to repeat it? I am pleased that we are making solid progress with the Miami Lakes incorporation group. Isn't it time for you and LINC to move forward with a reasonable agenda that fairly considers everyone affected by incorporation?

To paraphrase you, Mr. Bluh, what is the problem with that?