Respected Editor of The Pinecrest Tribune,
I refer to you to the Pinecrest Water Vote article by Mayor Corradino on the February 2019 issue of The Pinecrest Tribune.
While I fully realize the issue at stake, I just cannot seem to grasp the concept of making every Pinecrest property owner (whether it be a home or vacant land) for an issue belonging to just 750 homes. It just doesn’t seem fair to place the burden of these select few into the pocketbooks of the many other property owner and/or residents in the Village.
As an owner of 4 residential properties (2 homes and 2 vacant lots) in the Village, and a former owner of a newly constructed home completed in Dec 2015, who had to:
Bring water and hydrants to the property with 400 lineal feet of water main and 3 hydrants to meet construction requirements at a substantial cost personally to me.
Pay impact fees to the Village for that privilege to do.
Pay fees to Miami Dade County as well as establish a bond for construction and then a performance bond for 1 yr after.
I see no reason to levy this ‘personal and specific’ issue to each land or property owner in the laps of the other residents who may have had to already pay for this privilege (either on their own free will or by edict of the Village new construction requirements).
We have gotten this close to 100% water connection by enforcing on new development or upon transfer of ownership that homes connect to city water, and this, during a time of almost no Real Estate activity due to the Great Recession. With construction now booming in Pinecrest, it will be no time before the 750 properties will have the opportunity to connect.
I instead would urge the Village to focus their time and efforts on getting the sewage issue resolved for the entire Village where probably close to 95% of the homes are on septic tanks. Given sea level rise concerns, it will soon before a large majority of the properties will be under seepage risk in the very near term. I find this a more meaningful and impactful undertaking for the Village and the County.
In addition, the fact that this is being pushed thru as a Referendum, on the wishes of a few that have voiced and vigorously campaigned in front of the Village for action, instead of first in the form of a Poll amongst all property owners (not just registered voters) to determine whether to move it forward, is an issue worth exploring as well.
If a solution is sought for the select few, why not make a special assessment to those affected 750 homes without water and hydrants, and spread the cost over 20 years to current and future owners? That is a targeted solution to those that will benefit from this action, and puts no burden to the overwhelming majority. In essence, the Village finances – by paying for the upfront cost – to these owners their right to water over the same 20 year period but doesn’t penalize the other 5000 property owners in the Village.
I will strongly oppose this measure and plan to vote NO in the upcoming referendum and encourage the other property owners to do the same.
Pinecrest Property Owner